This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
- From: "David O'Brien" <obrien at FreeBSD dot org>
- To: Aaron Lehmann <aaronl at vitelus dot com>
- Cc: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:42:32 -0700
- Subject: Re: GCC
- Organization: The NUXI BSD Group
- References: <email@example.com> <20030731064707.GA20389@vitelus.com>
- Reply-to: obrien at FreeBSD dot org
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 11:47:07PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 08:44:19AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > I'm not sure why they think it is so difficult. It would seem that if
> > the patch is architecture-specific and well-formed (ie. conforming to
> > the coding style, etc), it typically just goes in, period. And patches
> > to target-independent code may go through one or two review cycles, but
> > again, if the patch looks good, it goes in. At least, I got the
> > impression that patches are seldomly rejected.
> Copyright assignments.
I agree with Robert Dewar about showing evidence that this is the main
problem. AMD hired SuSE to do the GCC work for Opteron, so copyright
assignments certainly weren't a problem for AMD. I know there are some
SuSE amd64(x86-64) patches that never got accepted -- FreeBSD hit the
same bugs which the patches would have fixed.
I think a much more accurate description would be Zack's "A Maintenance
Programmer's View of GCC" from the Ottawa GCC Summit. My last patch
trying to add a "GCC_OPTIONS" environmental variable was for AMD and some
very large ISV's benefit. Didn't go in, and not for copyright assignment