Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95

[Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>]

Joseph S. Myers wrote:

>On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>  
>
>>    * At least one GNATS category for bugs in that front end and runtime 
>>libraries. This category needs to be mentioned in gcc/gccbug.in, and in 
>>gnats.html on the GCC web site, as well as being added to the GNATS 
>>database.
>>
>>TODO -- what would be the appropriate name?  We should avoid confusion 
>>so that our bugs don't end up in the category for g77.
>>    
>>
>
>Only relevant at this point if you want tree-ssa bug reports against G95
>to go into GCC Bugzilla.
>

I'm not sure.  It's not like we're in bug fix mode yet, more like 
complete-features-mode, so we should probably not clutter the gcc-bugs 
mainling list and database.  I removed this point from the list.

>>    * Normally, one or more maintainers of that front end listed in 
>>MAINTAINERS.
>>
>>Paul, Toon and myself (when I finally contribute some patch again myself 
>>:))?
>>    
>>
>
>This could always be done on the mainline MAINTAINERS - no need to branch
>that file.
>
OK

>>    * The front end's manuals should be mentioned in 
>>maintainer-scripts/update_web_docs (see Texinfo Manuals) and the online 
>>manuals should be linked to from onlinedocs/index.html.
>>
>>TODO -- but we do not have much of a manual yet.  I was actually kinda 
>>hoping Steven Kargl and maybe Katherine would like to help with that 
>>(hint :)), being native speakers with American spelling.  I plan to work 
>>on this as long as I'm unable to build gcc's on my "new" computer.
>>    
>>
>
>You can always make the changes to update_web_docs on the branch, it just
>isn't much use (and the checked out directory on gcc.gnu.org would still
>need updating manually when tree-ssa goes to mainline).
>
Let's not do it then until the merge.

>>    * Any old releases or CVS repositories of the front end, before its 
>>inclusion in GCC, should be made available on the GCC FTP site 
>>ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/old-releases/.
>>
>>This is something I suggest we do not.  We have our own CVS repository 
>>at SF, and we never had any official release, so no point IMHO.
>>    
>>
>
>The repository copies are so that the early history stays available (if
>e.g. the repository - once dead and all development is in GCC mainline -
>is removed by Sourceforge, or Sourceforge disappears).
>

We'll have to try and get a copy of the SF repository then...  They're 
said to be very cooperative with such things.

>>Check!!! -- mostly.
>>The gcc_release part is done with the gcc_config patch.  The snapshot-* 
>>is TODO.  But do we really want to mention g95 in there?  tree-ssa is 
>>unreleased, so there will be no snapshots that contain g95 for many 
>>months to come.  I suggest we skip the snapshot part of this point and 
>>just keep the gcc_release like we have now.
>>    
>>
>
>That's something you can do on the files on the branch, so the changes
>become relevant when it merges to mainline.
>
OK

The list I compiled is now in our SF repository:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/gcc-g95/gcc-g95/TODO-for-GCC?rev=1.1&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
Let's make that list shorter :-)

Thanks,
Steven