From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17201 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2002 10:37:49 -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 17154 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2002 10:37:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (195.224.55.237) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2002 10:37:44 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 190C04049; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:37:20 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3E004FDF.3060304@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:37:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DJ Delorie Cc: dje@transmeta.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, cgen@sources.redhat.com, sid@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com 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> <200212171947.gBHJl3P23665@envy.delorie.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-q4/txt/msg00051.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? This would only all make sense if the .opc et.al. files were all (C) FSF. Which is back to my things-to-do-today list of fill out the src/cpu directory a little. Andrew