From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 118003 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2016 13:59:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libffi-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libffi-discuss-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 117948 invoked by uid 89); 27 Oct 2016 13:59:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=klose, Klose, Hx-languages-length:602, HTo:U*green X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:59:01 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4011EC0567A3; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:59:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-116-26.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.26]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9RDwwrc021866; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:58:58 -0400 Subject: Re: libffi maintenance within GCC? To: Matthias Klose , gcc Development , Anthony Green References: <48a433ca-9f6d-3b5b-9485-64261d812b66@ubuntu.com> Cc: "libffi-discuss@sourceware.org" , Ian Lance Taylor From: Andrew Haley Message-ID: <0e3249a8-7446-50c9-67b5-6632c837f4cb@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:59:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <48a433ca-9f6d-3b5b-9485-64261d812b66@ubuntu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 On 27/10/16 13:55, Matthias Klose wrote: > With the removal of libgcj, the only user of libffi in GCC is libgo, however > there is now no maintainer listed anymore for libffi in the MAINTAINERS file, > and the libffi subdir is a bit outdated compared to the libffi upstream > repository (got aware of this by libffi issue #197). Who would be responsible > now to update / review libffi patches, just the global reviewers, or should > libffi be maintained by the libgo maintainers? libffi has always been maintained by the appropriate back-end maintainers. Andrew.