On 02/10/13 14:59, Richard Biener wrote:
> The main reason for technical review of a port is to avoid that it uses
> deprecated mechanisms and thus blocks removal of them. Like
> accepting a port that uses target macros when a corresponding
> target hook exists, or accepting a port that uses reloa
On 30/09/13 17:09, Jeremy Bennett wrote:
Hi all,
You've probably seen that Joern Rennecke (amylaar) has been pinging
repeatedly for help reviewing the ARC port:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02072.html
Joern is approved as a maintainer, and the tests have been reviewed and
ap
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 15:59 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > On 10/02/2013 01:46 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 10/02/2013 12:47 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> It
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 10/02/2013 01:46 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/02/2013 12:47 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
It is unfortunate that global reviewers are so busy that they cannot
r
On 10/02/2013 01:46 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 10/02/2013 12:47 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
It is unfortunate that global reviewers are so busy that they cannot
review the few, infrequent new port submissions. But I find it very
distasteful f
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 10/02/2013 12:47 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> It is unfortunate that global reviewers are so busy that they cannot
>> review the few, infrequent new port submissions. But I find it very
>> distasteful for someone to hyperventilate because ot
On 10/02/2013 12:47 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> It is unfortunate that global reviewers are so busy that they cannot
> review the few, infrequent new port submissions. But I find it very
> distasteful for someone to hyperventilate because other, busy people
> don't do something that appears obvious
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 03:19 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Richard Biener:
>>
>>> Good. So what remains is the configure parts, the libgcc parts and
>>> the documentation parts. Though for all of them they look ARC
>>> specific so maybe the
On 10/01/2013 03:19 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Richard Biener:
Good. So what remains is the configure parts, the libgcc parts and
the documentation parts. Though for all of them they look ARC
specific so maybe the maintainership covers these as well.
I suppose this automatism when bei
On 10/01/13 09:23, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 10/01/2013 03:19 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Richard Biener:
Good. So what remains is the configure parts, the libgcc parts and
the documentation parts. Though for all of them they look ARC
specific so maybe the maintainership covers these as w
Quoting Richard Biener :
Good. So what remains is the configure parts, the libgcc parts and
the documentation parts. Though for all of them they look ARC
specific so maybe the maintainership covers these as well.
I suppose this automatism when being assigned the maintainership
escaped Joern a
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 11:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> Well, I want clarification as of whether assigning maintainership of the
>> port is equivalent to getting approval for checking in the port specific
>> parts. Which_I_ would think is reasona
On 10/01/2013 11:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Well, I want clarification as of whether assigning maintainership of the
port is equivalent to getting approval for checking in the port specific
parts. Which_I_ would think is reasonable (for the maintainer being
Joern even more so).
Well, sure i
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 09:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Jeremy Bennett
>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> You've probably seen that Joern Rennecke (amylaar) has been pinging
>>> repeatedly for help reviewing the ARC port:
On 10/01/2013 09:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Jeremy Bennett
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> You've probably seen that Joern Rennecke (amylaar) has been pinging
>> repeatedly for help reviewing the ARC port:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02072.ht
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Jeremy Bennett
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> You've probably seen that Joern Rennecke (amylaar) has been pinging
> repeatedly for help reviewing the ARC port:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02072.html
>
> Joern is approved as a maintainer, and the tests
16 matches
Mail list logo