> I apologize. They got caught up in other issues. They've been merged into > our mainstream and I believe they were just posted to the cilkplus.org > website and submitted to GCC.
I'm going to submit latest cilk runtime sources next week so I will check the mentioned change. Thanks, Igor > > - Barry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Schwinge [mailto:tho...@codesourcery.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 7:42 PM > To: Jeff Law > Cc: Zamyatin, Igor; Iyer, Balaji V; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Tannenbaum, Barry M; > H.J. Lu; Jakub Jelinek > Subject: Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus > implementation generally? > > Hi! > > On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:39:44 -0700, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 02/23/15 14:41, H.J. Lu wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:56:06PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > >>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:02:30 +0000, "Zamyatin, Igor" > <igor.zamya...@intel.com> wrote: > > >>>> Jeff Law wrote: > > >>>>> The original plan was for Balaji to take on this role; however, > > >>>>> his assignment within Intel has changed and thus he's not going > > >>>>> to have time to work on > > >>>>> Cilk+ anymore. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Igor Zamyatin has been doing a fair amount of Cilk+ > > >>>>> maintenance/bugfixing and it might make sense for him to own it in > the long term if he's interested. > > >>>> > > >>>> That's right. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks! > > >>> > > >>>> Can I add 2 records (cilk plus and libcilkrts) to Various Maintainers > section? > > >>> > > >>> I understand Jeff's email as a pre-approval of such a patch. > > >> > > >> I think only SC can appoint maintainers, and while Jeff is in the > > >> SC, my reading of that mail wasn't that it was the SC that has > > >> acked that, but rather a question if Igor is willing to take that > > >> role, which then would need to be acked by SC. > > > > > > Where are we on this? Do we have a maintainer for Cilk Plus and its > > > run-time library? > > Not at this time. There was a bit of blockage on various things with > > the steering committee (who approves maintainers). I've got a > > half-dozen or so proposals queued (including Cilk maintainership). > > What's the process then, that I get my Cilk Plus (libcilkrts) portability > patches > committed to GCC? I was advisd this must be routed through Intel (Barry M > Tannenbaum CCed), which I have done months ago: I submitted the patches > to Intel, and -- as I understood it -- Barry and I seemed to agree about them > (at least I don't remember any requests for changes to be made on my side), > but I have not seen a merge from Intel to update GCC's libcilkrts. Should I > now commit to GCC the pending patches, <http://news.gmane.org/find- > root.php?message_id=%3C8738bae1mp.fsf%40kepler.schwinge.homeip.net > %3E> > and following? > > > Grüße, > Thomas
