On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 8:38 PM Sam James <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Jose E. Marchesi" <[email protected]> writes: > > > [...] > > > > QUESTION: The remainding patches are specific to the Algol 68 support > > and do not touch common code/infrastructure. Should I purse explicit > > reviews for these? > > AFAIK no.
When the SC accepts Algol68 they should nominate you as a maintainer for it as well, so no, you can self-approve. > For cobol, I don't think we did that, and I don't think it > really makes sense to require it. > > I know for cobol, richi, jakub & others did go over it to help with > "integration"-style issues because they explicitly asked for help on > identifying such problems, but that was less about approval per-se > and more about getting the code up to scratch. > > richi or jakub can correct me if I'm wrong. Correct. I mostly looked at Cobols use of GENERIC and middle-end interfaces, GTY and other stuff. Jose is in a much better position here given I trust him to be familiar enough with all this. Or maybe a worse position since I didn't plan to look at those parts (not before the end of stage1 for sure) ;) > > [...] > > The compiler driver is called `ga68'. > > The compiler proper is called `a681'. > > The run-time library is called `libga68'. > > > > I tried wiring this up in our packaging last night and am pleased to > report it built and installed correctly on the first attempt! I'll start with packaging only after it hits trunk, because I'm too lazy even starting with GCC 16 packaging at this point (there's "something" already, but not for Algol, obviously). Richard. > > [...] > > sam
