From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21550 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2019 02:30:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 21507 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jan 2019 02:30:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=intend, supposing X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 02:30:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Vineet Gupta CC: , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] glibc port to ARC processors In-Reply-To: <1548811555-24373-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> Message-ID: References: <1548811555-24373-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg00690.txt.bz2 In the absence of clear consensus regarding consideration of new ports to undocumented architectures (which would need to result in consensus on suitable rules on the subject to go in ), and in the absence of suitable public architecture and ABI documentation, I don't intend to attempt review of this or subsequent versions of the port submission. (I am supposing that the documentation available at - which in any case does not include an ABI reference - is for an architecture version too old to be sufficient for understanding and maintaining the port code as may be needed in the course of glibc maintenance.) -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com