From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29313 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2015 17:13:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 29304 invoked by uid 89); 6 Mar 2015 17:13:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 17:13:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t26HDDjY010064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:13:13 -0500 Received: from [10.3.113.56] (ovpn-113-56.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.56]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t26HDBRD018109; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:13:11 -0500 Message-ID: <54F9E027.20002@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 17:13:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Schwinge CC: "Zamyatin, Igor" , "Iyer, Balaji V" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , barry.m.tannenbaum@intel.com, "H.J. Lu" , Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally? References: <87r3z33g2q.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> <54205555.5040506@redhat.com> <0EFAB2BDD0F67E4FB6CCC8B9F87D756969B792F6@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <871tqug0ft.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> <20140929110019.GC17454@tucnak.redhat.com> <54F8BF10.2070701@redhat.com> <877fuvdkji.fsf@schwinge.name> In-Reply-To: <877fuvdkji.fsf@schwinge.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00047.txt.bz2 On 03/05/15 17:41, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:39:44 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 02/23/15 14:41, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Jakub Jelinek 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" 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, > > 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