From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-154834-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8740 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2009 17:36:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 8730 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jun 2009 17:36:45 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.131.111.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:36:38 +0000
Received: from acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (acrux [128.131.111.60]) 	by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC92839106; 	Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:36:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix, from userid 1203) 	id 48D1A10059; Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:36:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2E11003D; 	Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:36:37 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:36:00 -0000
From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
To: Michael Meissner <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Ping: New Toshiba Media Processor (mep-elf) port and  maintainer
In-Reply-To: <20090619001416.GA7995@hungry-tiger.westford.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.1.99.0906201936200.29901@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
References: <alpine.LSU.1.99.0906021619000.27711@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <200906170452.n5H4qXY8028947@greed.delorie.com> <20090619001416.GA7995@hungry-tiger.westford.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.99 (LSU 1142 2008-08-13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00488.txt.bz2

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Michael Meissner wrote:
> All of my comments about the internals of the mep would be things to do
> if you desired, but as port maintainer, I don't see that we have to
> apply standards set for the rest of the compiler (if we did, probably
> half of the ports would be rejected for formatting in some of the
> files).

I believe what was mentioned at the Summit was that where ports introduce
deprecated interfaces or possibly increase the maintainence burden for
other maintainers in the future that is something we want to avoid, and
for that reason a check of port beyond changes in common code is
beneficial.

Gerald