This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Success report on Linux/PPC, small Ada problem
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: dewar at gnat dot com, fw at deneb dot enyo dot de
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk, minyard at acm dot org
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:34:51 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Success report on Linux/PPC, small Ada problem
<The Microsoft ressource compiler IIRC. What makes matters critical is
the fact that there *is* a free replacement.
>>
I agree that the Free Software replacement should be mentioned. I don't
necesarily object to mentioning that a GNU tool is compatible with standard
system utilities, To me this is not much different from the fact that
you have to use Microsoft OS code to run on Windows. Yes, we could take
the attitude that there is a free replacement for Windows, so we should
not mention or think about windows at all, but that's not the viewpoint
we have decided to take with gcc, while of course GNU is the primary
target for GCC, we recognize that it is of positive value for GCC to
run on other systems.
I agree we should not reference proprietary software outside the operating
system if we can avoid this. I suspect that when it comes to looking at
specific examples here, we won't have any significant disagreements.
Certainly ACT prefers to point to Free Software tools (including our own)
whenever possible in preference to proprietary tools.
On the other hand, if proprietary tools meet a need not met by Free Software
tools, we are not allergic to suggesting the unholy marriage :-)
But I agree that the official GCC manuals should avoid this wherever possible.
Robert Dewar