On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 20:51, Georg-Johann Lay <a...@gjlay.de> wrote:
> > (I really tried to follow this > https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches, > > but my stomach) > > > > Hi there all! > > > > The attached patch contains a new avr-backend, stripped from cc0. > > > > The author is gcc maintainer Snethil Kumar Selvaraj (saaadhu), > > Hi, AFAIK Senthil has write-after-approval state. The only avr > maintainer, at least according to MAINTAINERS, is still Denis, cf. > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=MAINTAINERS;h=32f8a2b72923b791f9687d6a2d555a1780535078;hb=HEAD#l59 > > I allowed me CCing them. > > > the source can be found here: > > > > https://github.com/saaadhu/gcc-avr-cc0/tree/avr-cc0-squashed > > > > The gcc/g++ testsuites show zero regressions, tested with: > > > > https://github.com/abebeos/avr-gnu > > > > and confirmed with another testsetup, see: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561489.html > > > > Some more background information within: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561668.html > > > > and > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729 > > > > (i have this dark feeling that I did the patch submission wrong... > pressing > > Send anyways!) > (hey, "between us": where did my real-name came from in your email? I choosed to appear here with an alias "abebeos" - not that it's difficult to find my real name, but still, it's my choice...) > > Sometimes it's more convenient to have a .diff text file, but I don't > see anything wrong with your submission. ok And what it really nice to > have hunks defined for "(define_" or "^(define_") in your git diff > setup. That way it's easier to track in which entity of the machine > description a change is located. Just like when you have a change > in the middle of a long C function, and the diff chunk spells out > the C function in which it is located. > ok > diff --git a/gcc/config/avr/avr-dimode.md b/gcc/config/avr/avr-dimode.md > [...] - (review) Thank you for taking the time to review. The author (currently not available) assessed the work as "semi working": The (lets say) integrator (me), assessed the work as "good enough" - given status of the gcc10 avr-backend this should be the prioriity (saving it from extinction). Possibly all details should be ignored for now, thus it can be merged. My process/decision (given circumstances) is to "not touch even whitespace" in the 0-regression-patch. So, what remains for me now is to produce a tiny document for the bounty-backers, and just hope that the folks here finds peace&wisdom to do the right thing. Over a n d Out! .
