On Wednesday, 3 August 2022 04:56:41 PDT Marc Mutz wrote: > - ARM > - x86 (Thiago would be the obvious candidate, if he's in for it)
I agree. I already do this anyway, so it's just formalising something that exists. > - MIPS > - POWER > - RISC-V > - S390 > - Sparc > > I would expect maintainers to be comfortable approving[1] assembly code > for their platform, work (or orchestrate work) towards feature-parity > with Qt's x86 support, and ideally getting the architecture into our CI > or else making sure locally that the architecture builds and tests pass. > > [1] Maintainers need to be Approvers, but I think we can grow an > architecture maintainer into a Qt project Approver, because I don't > think we'll find arch maintainers for all archs from the current set > of Approvers. > > What do you think? I think we're not going to find anyone for any of the other platforms in the short term. Maybe RISC-V because it's getting a lot of share-of-mind -- it's something that even I have an interest on (lack of hours in the day is the problem). And if we poke at Imagination folks we can get someone to review MIPS code. Interestingly, if you go to mips.com right now, the big banner is about RISC-V... POWER and S/390 are very IBM-specific. They're still active, but I don't think we have much relevance in that market. And Sparc has ceased being active. For those three I don't think we can hope to expect any kind of performance improvements. And since we don't have them in the CI at all, we can't even confirm they still build. I think they will go to the "we'll accept patches" bin, as opposed to Alpha patches. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
