Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?

[Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>]

On 03/05/15 17:41, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:39:44 -0700, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 02/23/15 14:41, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:56:06PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:02:30 +0000, "Zamyatin, Igor" <igor.zamyatin@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Jeff Law wrote:
>>>>>>> The original plan was for Balaji to take on this role; however, his assignment
>>>>>>> within Intel has changed and thus he's not going to have time to work on
>>>>>>> Cilk+ anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Igor Zamyatin has been doing a fair amount of Cilk+ maintenance/bugfixing
>>>>>>> and it might make sense for him to own it in the long term if he's interested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can I add 2 records (cilk plus and libcilkrts) to Various Maintainers section?
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand Jeff's email as a pre-approval of such a patch.
>>>>
>>>> I think only SC can appoint maintainers, and while Jeff is in the SC,
>>>> my reading of that mail wasn't that it was the SC that has acked that, but
>>>> rather a question if Igor is willing to take that role, which then would
>>>> need to be acked by SC.
>>>
>>> Where are we on this?  Do we have a maintainer for Cilk Plus
>>> and its run-time library?
>> Not at this time.  There was a bit of blockage on various things with
>> the steering committee (who approves maintainers).  I've got a
>> half-dozen or so proposals queued (including Cilk maintainership).
>
> What's the process then, that I get my Cilk Plus (libcilkrts) portability
> patches committed to GCC?  I was advisd this must be routed through Intel
> (Barry M Tannenbaum CCed), which I have done months ago: I submitted the
> patches to Intel, and -- as I understood it -- Barry and I seemed to
> agree about them (at least I don't remember any requests for changes to
> be made on my side), but I have not seen a merge from Intel to update
> GCC's libcilkrts.  Should I now commit to GCC the pending patches,
> <http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3C8738bae1mp.fsf%40kepler.schwinge.homeip.net%3E>
> and following?
For the runtime, the canonical bits are the upstream Cilk Plus project. 
  So any changes for the runtime go there first.  The comments WRT Cilk+ 
maintainers were more for the bits in GCC itself (ie, front-end 
extensions and related stuff up to gomp lowering/expansion.

There's the possibility of an update of the Cilk Plus runtime for gcc-5. 
  Igor is going to summarize the situation for the release managers to 
review and ultimately make a decision.

Jeff