This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: PING: gimplifier ICE fix / broken GCC 4.0


>>>>> Helge Hess writes:

>>> Honestly I don't understand the technical issue at hand

>> Then why don't you come back once you do.

Helge> Because its only partially relevant for the discussion.

	It still is important to understand the facts when attempting to
engage in a productive conversation.  Misunderstanding and redefining the
problem, and then arguing against your redefinition is a wonderful
rhetorical technique, but will not solve the problem.

>> It's silly to have a discussion based on guesses and misinformation.

Helge> Its also silly to drop a language frontend which worked for something 
Helge> like 15 years, without being able to line out the exact issues and 
Helge> proposed solutions in a few short sentences.

	No one is is proposing dropping Objective C as a GCC front-end.
Cut the hyperbole.

Helge> Its unrealistic to assume that everyone in the community is going to 
Helge> learn GCC development internals in a few weeks. Nor does it make any 
Helge> sense.
Helge> Despite this the issue must be resolved.

	You are ignoring the fact that Alex Malmberg wrote a patch to fix
the problem.  The patch was approved by Zem, checked in to the GCC CVS
repository and will be inclued in GCC 4.0.

	The patch implements the suggested fix proposed by Richard
Henderson months ago when the earlier patch was rejected.  If the
Objective C user community had devoted a fraction of the time spent
flaming GCC developers to utilize feedback from other GCC developers,
Objective C would be in much better shape.

	Please stop turning the GCC developers into scapegoats.  No
individuals, group, or company involved in GCC development is attacking,
harming or undermining Objective C.  Everyone has different resources and
different priorities.  Your priorities clearly are Objective C, but you
cannot impose your priorities on others.  There is no Natural Law or "Free
Software" argument that someone else has to fix bugs in areas of GCC you
find important because you say so.  We understand that you are very
passionate about it, but you need to find a more productive way to improve
support for Objective C.

David


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]