From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 61713 invoked by alias); 3 May 2016 07:41:37 -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 61680 invoked by uid 89); 3 May 2016 07:41:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Green, HTo:U*libffi-discuss, trusted, Anthony 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 03 May 2016 07:41:34 +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 59F59478; Tue, 3 May 2016 07:41:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zebedee.pink ([10.3.113.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u437fVNO005634; Tue, 3 May 2016 03:41:32 -0400 Subject: Re: libffi maintenance To: Anthony Green , "libffi-discuss@sourceware.org" References: From: Andrew Haley Message-ID: <5728562B.2070408@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 07:41:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 On 02/05/16 14:51, Anthony Green wrote: > In addition, I've granted write permission to three trusted and active > hackers: Tom Tromey, Richard Henderson and Josh Triplett. I plan on > spending a little more time on libffi soon, but there's been a log jam > of PRs over the past year, and I hope this change will help move > things along. We should have the conversation about what to do about the old and stale libffi in the GCC tree. It's caused me (and probably plenty of others) a great deal of confusion this year, with various bug fixes and improvements to merge one way or the other. In particular, I still don't really know where development happens: some of it happens in GCC and some in libffi upstream. I'd like libffi to be gone from the GCC repo, but that's probably not possible. I intend to delete libgcj, but I think that gccgo still uses libffi. Andrew.