Hi, I'm hitting a wall on architecture-specific patches that aren't x86 (or, to a lesser extent, ARM). I don't know who's responsible for the MIPS assembly we have in QtCore, nor who to talk to to get qYieldCpu implemented for architectures other than x86 and ARM (https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-103010).
Honestly, I also feel that x86 gets dis-proportionally more love than other archs (incl. ARM), because Intel supports Thiago's work (whether by paying for his work or just by having access to experts, I don't want to speculate here, as it doesn't matter in the end). So, I'd like to propose to create a set of CPU architecture maintainers a la the platform maintainers we already have. As per qprocessordetection.h, we purport to support the following architectures: - Alpha (commented out, architecture is dead, anyway) - ARM - AVR32 (commented out) - Blackfin (commented out) - x86 (incl. AMD64) - Itanium (architecture is dead, though) - MIPS - POWER - RISC-V - S390/X - SuperH (commented out) - Sparc - WebAssembly (special case: archtecture == platform) So, we'd need maintainers for the following platforms, or declare the platform unsupported: - ARM - x86 (Thiago would be the obvious candidate, if he's in for it) - 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? Thanks, Marc _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development