From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6674 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2003 14:23:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6279 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2003 14:23:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gash2.peakpeak.com) (207.174.178.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 2003 14:23:08 -0000 Received: from fleche.redhat.com (tf0233.peakpeak.com [204.144.239.233]) by gash2.peakpeak.com (8.9.3/8.9.3.1) with ESMTP id IAA06650; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:23:06 -0600 Received: by fleche.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2D8234F82BD; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:15:20 -0600 (MDT) To: kaz Kojima Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, java@gcc.gnu.org, joern.rennecke@superh.com, aoliva@redhat.com, GCC Hackers Subject: Re: Unreviewed patch References: <200306121332.h5CDWGJ10519@r-rr.iij4u.or.jp> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com X-Attribution: Tom X-Zippy: LOOK!!! I'm WALKING in my SLEEP again!! Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:42:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200306121332.h5CDWGJ10519@r-rr.iij4u.or.jp> Message-ID: <87u1av8jrb.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg01057.txt.bz2 >>>>> "kaz" == kaz Kojima writes: kaz> libffi sh64-*-linux* support: kaz> As you've discovered, libffi is a bit under maintained. I'm not really the person to do it -- I'd do little more than rubber stamp patches that come in. I'm happy to do that, though, in the absence of a better process. Hopefully some more qualified person out there will speak up (and we'll end up with a libffi entry in MAINTAINERS). I believe we've agreed in the past that port maintainers can make port-specific libffi changes. So I think you can check in your fix on that basis. Tom