On Tue, 12 Aug 2025, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote: > I think we should have a requirement of the bare minimum for a port is a > maintainer. > I also vote to have a testresults for the target at least once a year.
Maintainers should also show some sign of action on things requiring changes across all ports. One GCC-internal example would be the move to LRA. One user-visible example would be defining an ABI for _BitInt and enabling _BitInt support for the port, it's a required C23 feature. Here many of the less-active ports actually have it *easier* than the more-active ports, because they probably don't have any maintained ABI document or expectation of being ABI-compatible with other implementations for such new features, so just need to write down what the ABI is that GCC uses in the commit message when enabling the feature - whereas for more-active ports, there might be a maintained ABI document to update, and other active implementations to maintain ABI compatibility with, both of which are liable to slow down defining the ABI and adding the feature. -- Joseph S. Myers josmy...@redhat.com
