From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24542 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2012 18:45:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 24531 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Apr 2012 18:45:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-we0-f175.google.com) (74.125.82.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:44:45 +0000 Received: by wera1 with SMTP id a1so2160919wer.20 for ; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.78.40 with SMTP id y8mr22593193wiw.15.1333392284064; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rsandifo.gotadsl.co.uk. [82.133.89.107]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l5sm36085479wia.11.2012.04.02.11.44.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:44:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: Maxim Kuvyrkov Mail-Followup-To: Maxim Kuvyrkov ,Richard Earnshaw , Jan Hubicka , , rdsandiford@googlemail.com Cc: Richard Earnshaw , Jan Hubicka , Subject: Re: [GCC Steering Committee] Android sub-port reviewer References: <16285357-1E07-4D60-BD8D-2B2FE796609B@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:45:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <16285357-1E07-4D60-BD8D-2B2FE796609B@codesourcery.com> (Maxim Kuvyrkov's message of "Mon, 2 Apr 2012 07:57:26 +1200") Message-ID: <87sjgmm0rt.fsf@talisman.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 Maxim Kuvyrkov writes: > On 29/03/2012, at 5:38 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > >> I volunteer as the reviewer for Android sub-port. >> >> Android/Bionic support is an extension over Linux port and is being gradually added for more and more architectures. I wrote the original Android GCC support for ARM (under a watchful design eye of Joseph Myers), and know how the bits fit together. >> >> As adding Android support to a new architecture requires changes to that architecture, the architecture maintainer will have the power of veto for the Android-related changes. > > One of the members of SC raised a good point about whether architecture maintainers would prefer to handle the Android patches themselves. My intention is to spare you the additional headache of dealing with Android, but, well, maybe you like it :-). > > Richard E., > Jan, > Richard S., > > Do you want to handle Android changes by yourself or do you want to delegate? Having a separate maintainer of MIPS Android sounds good to me too (and thanks for asking). As Richard E says, we should probably coordinate any changes to the generic MIPS files, but I wouldn't know what's right for Android-specific stuff. Richard