Stream: t-lang

Topic: Inline asm WG

Amanieu (Dec 07 2019 at 21:58, on Zulip):

I'm currently looking into writing the RFC for the inline asm project group. I'm trying to base it on the FFI unwind group's RFC ( but 90% of that RFC is just describing what a project group is.
I don't think there is much point in repeating this for the asm project group, but then all that's left is just the charter and the motivation.

Amanieu (Dec 07 2019 at 21:58, on Zulip):

Do we still want to write an RFC for this or can we skip to just writing the charter?

Amanieu (Dec 07 2019 at 22:52, on Zulip):

Also, could someone with the appropriate permissions create a Zulip stream and a github repo for the WG?

XAMPPRocky (Dec 08 2019 at 09:30, on Zulip):

@Amanieu I believe you can leave out of the definition of project groups. We're working on a separate RFC that defines that terminology. I think the intent of what a project group RFC is meant contain is the details of group e.g. "liasons, sheperds, members" , the charter itself, and the motivation/drawbacks/prior art/questions sections.

nikomatsakis (Dec 09 2019 at 20:39, on Zulip):

@Amanieu I think the idea would be to basically present the charter

nikomatsakis (Dec 09 2019 at 20:40, on Zulip):

I'll make the stream / repo, I'll also create one for the safe-transmute (cc @Ryan Levick, @Josh Triplett)

nikomatsakis (Dec 09 2019 at 20:40, on Zulip):

@XAMPPRocky I wonder if it's time to move fwd with that RFC. I am getting more and more annoying at the lack of our terminology to distinguish (e.g.) compiler working groups and domain work groups as well.

Last update: Jan 28 2020 at 01:25UTC