From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26466 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2002 19:47:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact sid-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: sid-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26425 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2002 19:47:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO delorie.com) (207.22.48.162) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 17 Dec 2002 19:47:17 -0000 Received: from envy.delorie.com (envy.delorie.com [207.22.48.171]) by delorie.com (8.11.6/8.9.1) with ESMTP id gBHJl4r02580; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:47:04 -0500 Received: (from dj@localhost) by envy.delorie.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id gBHJl3P23665; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:47:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:47:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200212171947.gBHJl3P23665@envy.delorie.com> X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj@delorie.com using -f From: DJ Delorie To: dje@transmeta.com CC: binutils@sources.redhat.com, cgen@sources.redhat.com, sid@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <15871.31192.305439.813418@casey.transmeta.com> (message from Doug Evans on Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:24:08 -0800 (PST)) Subject: Re: New Sanyo Stormy16 relocations References: <1039041358.28757.307.camel@p4> <20021204225643.GS27956@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <1039043233.28767.313.camel@p4> <200212170353.gBH3r9f14238@envy.delorie.com> <15871.31192.305439.813418@casey.transmeta.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-q4/txt/msg00047.txt.bz2 > Having to get cgen approval for cpu-specific changes sucks. > People should be able to police their own ports. > gcc port maintainers don't have to get approval for changes to their > ports. I don't understand why this would be any different. Because cgen feeds binutils, gdb, and sid. Which one of those has the port maintainers responsible for cgen? What happens if a binutils maintainer changes cgen, and unknowingly breaks sid or gdb? > But, if approval is required, methinks binutils is a better place to > provide approval for .opc changes (e.g. complaints about warnings :-). Better than sid? Better than gdb? OTOH we've talked about moving the port-specific files out of cgen and into their own toplevel directory, which would remove this issue anyway. But, let me make the formal request anyway. gdb and sid cc'd. Cgen folks (and others)... would it be acceptable to change the cgen approval rules to allow people who could otherwise approve port-specific patches in binutils, gdb, or sid, to be allowed to approve port-specific changes in cgen as well?