Richard Sandiford writes:
> However, IMO, your argument about MTI being the central authority
> is a killer one. The purpose of the GNU tools should be to follow
> appropriate standards where applicable (and extend them where it
> seems wise). So from that point of view, I agree that the GNU tools
> should follow the ABI that Nigel and MTI set down. Consider my
> patch withdrawn.
While I'm not entirely clear how this decision came about I'd like to point
out that it is unfortunate that MTI had not sought wider consensus for this
ABI extension among MIPS implementors and the community.
We would not be in this situation with duplicated efforts and much frustration
if this proposal had been circulated properly ahead of time.
> I've been thinking about that a lot recently, since I heard about
> your implementation. I kind-of guessed it had been agreed with MTI
> beforehand (although I hadn't realised MTI themselves had written
> the specification). Having thought it over, I think it would be best
> if I stand down as a MIPS maintainer and if someone with the appropriate
> commercial connections is appointed instead. I'd recommend any
> combination of yourself, Adam Nemet and David Daney (subject to
> said people being willing, of course).
Richard, while I understand your frustration I really hope that you will
reconsider your decision and remain the MIPS maintainer. I think there is a
chance that if the community expresses that MTI should seek broader consensus
for such proposals they will do so in the future.
Your expertise as the GCC maintainer has improved the backend tremendously and
and you should be given all the information necessary to continue your great