[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: crosstool-NG

From: Weddington, Eric
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: crosstool-NG
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:50:44 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden On
> Behalf Of Georg-Johann Lay
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 11:46 AM
> To: David Brown
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: crosstool-NG
> You have to go through the bureaucracy only once (signing FSF/GPL
> stuff). As far as I can tell, getting patches into avr backend is no big
> deal, at least for straight forward stuff (I did'n yet try to get more
> elaborate stuff into avr). Even though GCC supports fair amount of
> whatever, avr development takes place in a small (with respect to rest
> of GCC) sandbox: the avr backend. Other parts of GCC are not affected by
> the work in that sandbox and thus is no issue for maintainers other than
> avr backend maintainers.
> Johann

I have to agree with Johann. The FSF copyright assignment only has to be done 
once, but if it can't be done then that is a big showstopper.

The other main issue, that I see at least, are the testing requirements. 
Getting your (non-trivial) patch tested enough to have it committed takes just 
the right setup, and it can't be done on Windows (due to the usage of the 
dejagnu test system). The GCC regression test suite is big and takes a while to 

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]