You would probably need to motivate a member of the PPMC to host a vote. No one person should make a decision like this. A vote confirms the will of the majority of the PPMC.
For the case of code modifications, there are special voting rules that apply: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 5:55 PM Alan Rosenthal <alan.rosent...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! > > What needs to be done to open the discussion to consider changing the > rules? > > Also please see a very detailed comment on the github issue here by > @robertlipe: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/issues/6896#issuecomment-1227971503 > > Thanks, > > Alan > > On 2022/08/25 07:07:43 Byron Ellacott wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 11:58 PM Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 11:38 AM Nathan Hartman <ha...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 8:33 PM Alan Rosenthal < > alan.rosent...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello NuttXers, > > > > > > > > > > I recently posted an issue to the NuttX Github page: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/issues/6896 > > > > > > > > > > I'll summarize my thoughts here. > > > > > > > > > > Currently NuttX has a C89 requirement. However, there is code in > the > > > > > codebase today that is not C89 compliant. Rather than reworking > > > > > existing code to be C89, we should reevaluate the C89 requirement. > > > > > > > > > > C99 and C11 have added a lot of language features, and by updating > the > > > C > > > > > standard to a newer version, we will add more tools to the NuttX > > > toolbox. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Alan, > > > > > > > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts. > > > > > > > > I believe one of the big reasons for C89 compliance in the codebase > is > > > > because NuttX supports a wide range of microcontroller chips, not all > of > > > > which have a C99 or newer toolchain available. > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the arch supported by NuttX: > > > C99 > > > arm Y > > > arm64 Y > > > avr Y > > > ceva Y > > > hc > > > mips Y > > > misoc > > > or1k Y > > > renesas Y > > > risc-v Y > > > sim Y > > > sparc Y > > > x86 Y > > > x86_64 Y > > > xtensa Y > > > z16 > > > z80 > > > I don't know which compiler is used for hc, misoc, z16 and z80, but > other > > > arches support C99 very well. > > > So, the question is whether the C99 requirement will impact these four > > > arches. > > > > > > > All of the Zilog family CPUs (z8, z16, z80, z180, ez80) use the ZDS-II > > development software released by Zilog by default. The C compiler in > ZDS-II > > is C89 and a C99 requirement will stop the successful build of the z16 > and > > z80 (z80, z180, ez80 cpu) arches. > > > > Some time ago I contributed the necessary changes for the eZ80 target to > > build using an experimental release of clang with Z80 and eZ80 support, > but > > it's not been sufficient priority for me to either contribute the > automated > > tests to have it continue to build, nor to even keep reasonably up to > date > > with NuttX changes, so I can't say for sure that it still builds > correctly. > > If it does build, then the eZ80 CPU in the z80 arch would at least still > be > > usable for those willing to use an experimental clang port. > > > > -- > > bje > > >
