From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12251 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2009 14:33:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 12240 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2009 14:32:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx20.gnu.org (HELO mx20.gnu.org) (199.232.41.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:32:52 +0000 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MCaTR-00080k-SX for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:32:50 -0400 Received: (qmail 2160 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2009 14:32:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 5 Jun 2009 14:32:46 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MCaTN-0002JP-Ck; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:32:45 +0000 Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:33:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Paul Edwards cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: i370 port In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Detected-Operating-System: by mx20.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00095.txt.bz2 On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Paul Edwards wrote: > It was dropped from GCC 4 when there was supposedly no > maintainer available. Actually, Dave Pitts and myself were > both maintaining it at that time, but we were both still working > on an old version of it (3.2). So gcc 3.4.6, circa 2004, was the > last time it was included in the normal GCC distribution. (For reference, the port was removed in SVN revision 77216; before then it had had various largely mechanical changes as part of changes to multiple back ends or target-independent code, with r69086 as the last vaguely i370-only change but no changes appearing to come from someone specifically working and testing on i370 for some years before then. "svn log svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk/gcc/config/i370@77215" shows the history.) > We were both maintaining it, and continue to maintain it, > because MVS doesn't have any alternate free C compiler > available. To merge back into FSF GCC, the people who have made changes that would be merged back will need to have copyright assignments on file at the FSF (and disclaimers from any relevant employers). I don't have a current copy of the assignments list (my very old copy does show assignments from David G. Pitts with an employer disclaimer dating from 1993). > So, my question is - what is required to get the i370 port reinstated > into the GCC mainline? The basic requirements for a resurrected port are the same as for a new port; it needs to be assigned to the FSF, to pass the normal technical review, and the SC needs to approve someone as a maintainer of the port (there may be a bottleneck with the last stage, since there are currently at least three new ports pending approval). It is a very good idea if you can run the testsuite for the port and will be posting results to gcc-testresults regularly. I would encourage going through all the changes made to the i370 port on GCC mainline, after 3.1/3.2 branched and before the port was removed, to see what should be merged into your version for mainline; ultimately it would be up to you how you get it updated for all the mechanical changes on mainline since 3.2, but those changes (see command above to get logs) may be a useful guide to how to do some of the updates. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com