This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: pointer <-> integer conversion warnings (bogus -Wall warnings )
- From: mike stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- To: aoliva at redhat dot com, lord at regexps dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:08:10 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: pointer <-> integer conversion warnings (bogus -Wall warnings )
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 23:52:19 -0800 (PST)
> From: Tom Lord <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
> In April 1999, the egcs
> __steering__committee__was__appointed__ by
> the FSF
> At that time GCC was renamed from the "GNU C
> Compiler" to the "GNU Compiler Collection" and received a new
They hold the official title, but all the technical responsibility
that normally falls on the `maintainer' they pass on to other people.
Their role is more for when the maintainers cannot resolve a dispute
on their own. For handling `serious' issues...
You go on to describe a different operating mode for the steering
committee and my take on the your suggestion is that it would
seriously harm both the SC and gcc. I don't want the steering
committee to `take' money from people, nor to hand out `we love you'
awards. I don't want them to run parallel private lists that only
people on the in crowd can join. We've done that before, and despite
the best of intentions, I'd rather suffer with the lists being public.
As for the composition of the SC, I can't recall it mattering very
much. It in part doesn't, as their role is fairly limited. That's my
take. If the body of technical maintainers disagree with the SC, we
can effectively override, or seek to override them by all agreeing to
agree on a point, even if it is counter with thier point. In the end,
we can always get our way, if we feel strongly enough (egcs did it).
We are so far from this need, that I hate to even suggest the above,
as one might interpret it as though we were closer to having a need
for such extreme measurs than we are.
The SC is accountable to the gcc maintainers, and the the FSF. Either
organization can effect the SC. You would first need to convince one
of them of a change being necessary, what that change is, and that the
change would be good. Not exactly sure what change you want, but from
your email, it sounds like I am not in favor of it. I am a Redhat
shareholder, so people are free to write off my opinion, as they care.