On 03/05/15 17:41, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
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?
For the runtime, the canonical bits are the upstream Cilk Plus project.
So any changes for the runtime go there first. The comments WRT Cilk+
maintainers were more for the bits in GCC itself (ie, front-end
extensions and related stuff up to gomp lowering/expansion.
There's the possibility of an update of the Cilk Plus runtime for gcc-5.
Igor is going to summarize the situation for the release managers to
review and ultimately make a decision.
Jeff
