> On Jul 26, 2018, at 7:34 PM, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>
>>>> Port maintainers DO need to decide what to do about speculation, even if
>>>> it is explicitly that no mitigation is needed.
>>>
>>> Agreed. But I didn't yet see a request for maintainers to decide that?
>>>
>>
>> consider it made, then :-)
>
> I suggest the following as an appropriate process for anything needing
> attention from architecture maintainers:
>
> * Send a message to the gcc list, starting its own thread, CC:ed to all
> target architecture maintainers, stating explicitly in its first sentence
> that it is about something needing action from all such maintainers.
Yes, because it was not clear to me that a patch discussion about a speculation
builtin was something that every target maintainer was supposed to look at.
"Speculation" is not a term that shows up in my target...
> ...
> * Over the next few months, send occasional reminders, each including a
> list of the ports that have not been updated.
Would the GCC Wiki be a good place to collect all the responses and track what
is still open? If not, what is a good way to do the tracking?
paul
