* Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
@ 2014-09-22 14:06 Thomas Schwinge
2014-09-22 14:35 ` Make name+email address cut'n'paste-able (was: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?) Jan-Benedict Glaw
2014-09-22 17:08 ` Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally? Jeff Law
0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2014-09-22 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Iyer, Balaji V, gcc
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 387 bytes --]
Hi!
As has been noted before,
<http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3Cyddhabgief1.fsf%40lokon.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE%3E>,
GCC's MAINTAINERS file does not list a maintainer for libcilkrts, or
GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally. Shouldn't it? I regularely
consult this file when reporting issues in specific parts of the GCC code
base.
Grüße,
Thomas
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 472 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Make name+email address cut'n'paste-able (was: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?)
2014-09-22 14:06 Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally? Thomas Schwinge
@ 2014-09-22 14:35 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2014-09-22 16:42 ` Make name+email address cut'n'paste-able Jeff Law
2014-09-22 17:08 ` Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally? Jeff Law
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2014-09-22 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 997 bytes --]
On Mon, 2014-09-22 16:06:21 +0200, Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> As has been noted before,
> <http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3Cyddhabgief1.fsf%40lokon.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE%3E>,
> GCC's MAINTAINERS file does not list a maintainer for libcilkrts, or
> GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally. Shouldn't it? I regularely
> consult this file when reporting issues in specific parts of the GCC code
> base.
While we're at it...
I consult that file as well, even quite often for preparing Build
Robot emails. There's another usability enhancement: I'd like to
propose to put all email addresses between '<' and '>', which would
quite ease cut'n'past-ability. What's your oppinion on that? Should I
prepare a patch?
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de +49-172-7608481
Signature of: The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty
the second : decreases." (Thomas Jefferson)
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Make name+email address cut'n'paste-able
2014-09-22 14:35 ` Make name+email address cut'n'paste-able (was: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?) Jan-Benedict Glaw
@ 2014-09-22 16:42 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2014-09-22 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan-Benedict Glaw, gcc
On 09/22/14 08:35, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-09-22 16:06:21 +0200, Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> As has been noted before,
>> <http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3Cyddhabgief1.fsf%40lokon.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE%3E>,
>> GCC's MAINTAINERS file does not list a maintainer for libcilkrts, or
>> GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally. Shouldn't it? I regularely
>> consult this file when reporting issues in specific parts of the GCC code
>> base.
>
> While we're at it...
>
> I consult that file as well, even quite often for preparing Build
> Robot emails. There's another usability enhancement: I'd like to
> propose to put all email addresses between '<' and '>', which would
> quite ease cut'n'past-ability. What's your oppinion on that? Should I
> prepare a patch?
Sure.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
2014-09-22 14:06 Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally? Thomas Schwinge
2014-09-22 14:35 ` Make name+email address cut'n'paste-able (was: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?) Jan-Benedict Glaw
@ 2014-09-22 17:08 ` Jeff Law
2014-09-23 11:18 ` Zamyatin, Igor
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2014-09-22 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Schwinge, Iyer, Balaji V, gcc
On 09/22/14 08:06, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As has been noted before,
> <http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3Cyddhabgief1.fsf%40lokon.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE%3E>,
> GCC's MAINTAINERS file does not list a maintainer for libcilkrts, or
> GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally. Shouldn't it? I regularely
> consult this file when reporting issues in specific parts of the GCC code
> base.
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.
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* RE: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
2014-09-22 17:08 ` Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally? Jeff Law
@ 2014-09-23 11:18 ` Zamyatin, Igor
2014-09-29 11:00 ` Thomas Schwinge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Zamyatin, Igor @ 2014-09-23 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law, Thomas Schwinge, Iyer, Balaji V, gcc
> 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.
Can I add 2 records (cilk plus and libcilkrts) to Various Maintainers section?
Thanks,
Igor
>
> jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* RE: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
2014-09-23 11:18 ` Zamyatin, Igor
@ 2014-09-29 11:00 ` Thomas Schwinge
2014-09-29 11:09 ` Jakub Jelinek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2014-09-29 11:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zamyatin, Igor, Jeff Law, Iyer, Balaji V; +Cc: gcc
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 668 bytes --]
Hi!
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.
Grüße,
Thomas
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 472 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
2014-09-29 11:00 ` Thomas Schwinge
@ 2014-09-29 11:09 ` Jakub Jelinek
2014-09-29 13:10 ` Thomas Schwinge
2015-02-23 21:41 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2014-09-29 11:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Schwinge; +Cc: Zamyatin, Igor, Jeff Law, Iyer, Balaji V, gcc
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:56:06PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> 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.
Jakub
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
2014-09-29 11:09 ` Jakub Jelinek
@ 2014-09-29 13:10 ` Thomas Schwinge
2015-02-23 21:41 ` H.J. Lu
1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2014-09-29 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: Zamyatin, Igor, Jeff Law, Iyer, Balaji V, gcc
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1189 bytes --]
Hi!
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:00:19 +0200, 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.
I see. Thanks for clarifying that formal process.
Grüße,
Thomas
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 472 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
2014-09-29 11:09 ` Jakub Jelinek
2014-09-29 13:10 ` Thomas Schwinge
@ 2015-02-23 21:41 ` H.J. Lu
2015-03-05 20:39 ` Jeff Law
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2015-02-23 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: Thomas Schwinge, Zamyatin, Igor, Jeff Law, Iyer, Balaji V, gcc
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:
>> Hi!
>>
>> 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?
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
2015-02-23 21:41 ` H.J. Lu
@ 2015-03-05 20:39 ` Jeff Law
2015-03-06 0:42 ` Thomas Schwinge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2015-03-05 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu, Jakub Jelinek
Cc: Thomas Schwinge, Zamyatin, Igor, Iyer, Balaji V, gcc
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:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> 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).
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
2015-03-05 20:39 ` Jeff Law
@ 2015-03-06 0:42 ` Thomas Schwinge
2015-03-06 14:26 ` Tannenbaum, Barry M
2015-03-06 17:13 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2015-03-06 0:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law
Cc: Zamyatin, Igor, Iyer, Balaji V, gcc, barry.m.tannenbaum, H.J. Lu,
Jakub Jelinek
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2206 bytes --]
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?
Grüße,
Thomas
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 472 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* RE: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
2015-03-06 0:42 ` Thomas Schwinge
@ 2015-03-06 14:26 ` Tannenbaum, Barry M
2015-03-06 14:37 ` Zamyatin, Igor
2015-03-06 17:13 ` Jeff Law
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Tannenbaum, Barry M @ 2015-03-06 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Schwinge, Jeff Law
Cc: Zamyatin, Igor, Iyer, Balaji V, gcc, H.J. Lu, Jakub Jelinek, Bae,
Hansang
I apologize. They got caught up in other issues. They've been merged into our mainstream and I believe they were just posted to the cilkplus.org website and submitted to GCC.
- Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Schwinge [mailto:thomas@codesourcery.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 7:42 PM
To: Jeff Law
Cc: Zamyatin, Igor; Iyer, Balaji V; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Tannenbaum, Barry M; H.J. Lu; Jakub Jelinek
Subject: Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
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?
Grüße,
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* RE: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
2015-03-06 14:26 ` Tannenbaum, Barry M
@ 2015-03-06 14:37 ` Zamyatin, Igor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Zamyatin, Igor @ 2015-03-06 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tannenbaum, Barry M, Thomas Schwinge, Jeff Law
Cc: Iyer, Balaji V, gcc, H.J. Lu, Jakub Jelinek, Bae, Hansang
> I apologize. They got caught up in other issues. They've been merged into
> our mainstream and I believe they were just posted to the cilkplus.org
> website and submitted to GCC.
I'm going to submit latest cilk runtime sources next week so I will check the mentioned change.
Thanks,
Igor
>
> - Barry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Schwinge [mailto:thomas@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 7:42 PM
> To: Jeff Law
> Cc: Zamyatin, Igor; Iyer, Balaji V; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Tannenbaum, Barry M;
> H.J. Lu; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus
> implementation generally?
>
> 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?
>
>
> Grüße,
> Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
2015-03-06 0:42 ` Thomas Schwinge
2015-03-06 14:26 ` Tannenbaum, Barry M
@ 2015-03-06 17:13 ` Jeff Law
2016-03-29 15:10 ` Thomas Schwinge
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2015-03-06 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Schwinge
Cc: Zamyatin, Igor, Iyer, Balaji V, gcc, barry.m.tannenbaum, H.J. Lu,
Jakub Jelinek
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
2015-03-06 17:13 ` Jeff Law
@ 2016-03-29 15:10 ` Thomas Schwinge
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2016-03-29 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law, gcc
Cc: Zamyatin, Igor, Iyer, Balaji V, barry.m.tannenbaum, H.J. Lu,
Jakub Jelinek, Ilya Verbin
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3763 bytes --]
Hi!
Just to remind: it had been announced in
<http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3C0EFAB2BDD0F67E4FB6CCC8B9F87D756969E255C1%40IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com%3E>,
but more than a year later, this has still not been resolved. No merge
of libcilkrts has been done from the upstream Intel sources into GCC
trunk (to bring in my GNU Hurd portability patches, for example). I
understand that a GNU Hurd port is not of great importance, but here it
seems the whole process of the Intel upstream/shared source repository is
broken.
Also, still nobody is listed in the GCC MAINTAINERS file as being
responsible for Cilk Plus in GCC, which for more than a year, a proposal
for has been pending/waiting for GCC Steering Committee approval,
<http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3C54F8BF10.2070701%40redhat.com%3E>.
Grüße
Thomas
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:13:11 -0700, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/15 17:41, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > 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
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 472 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-03-29 15:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-09-22 14:06 Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally? Thomas Schwinge
2014-09-22 14:35 ` Make name+email address cut'n'paste-able (was: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?) Jan-Benedict Glaw
2014-09-22 16:42 ` Make name+email address cut'n'paste-able Jeff Law
2014-09-22 17:08 ` Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally? Jeff Law
2014-09-23 11:18 ` Zamyatin, Igor
2014-09-29 11:00 ` Thomas Schwinge
2014-09-29 11:09 ` Jakub Jelinek
2014-09-29 13:10 ` Thomas Schwinge
2015-02-23 21:41 ` H.J. Lu
2015-03-05 20:39 ` Jeff Law
2015-03-06 0:42 ` Thomas Schwinge
2015-03-06 14:26 ` Tannenbaum, Barry M
2015-03-06 14:37 ` Zamyatin, Igor
2015-03-06 17:13 ` Jeff Law
2016-03-29 15:10 ` Thomas Schwinge
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).