Re: [RFA] Sparc/Linux fixes part 1

["David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>]

   From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
   Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
   
   I can't "look at the bfd and elf bits" to "find out" what the long
   double type size is.  The information simply isn't there.

Michael or someone, can we please bring closure to these
issues?  I've believe I've described my delimma ad nauseum
at this point.

Now, if debugging information contained the size/layout of
fundamental C types, we could solve this using that.  But
I somehow doubt this information is provided that way.

On another topic, I have like 10 or so RFAs pending, and nobody
provides any feedback.  Yet someone else submits a patch after all of
mine and it gets an RFA quite quickly.  It's not like I'm submitting
jumbo patches or anything, what gives?

I want to maintain and fix up the Sparc port, but I cannot do that
with multi-day lead times on patch review for even the most simple of
changes.  If nobody has the time to review my changes, then lets vote
on letting me be the Sparc maintainer because I do have the time to
keep it in good shape.

If the answer is "we don't have the time, and no you can't become the
Sparc maintainer", how the heck is someone supposed to become a
significant contributor to GDB? :(

I want to work on new bugs, failures in the testsuite, but I really
ought not to do that until my existing work is sorted out.