Re: Will tree-ssa be GCC 3.5?

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian at wasabisystems dot com>]

Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com> writes:

> To which I would reply: Why should the National Labs support a
> software project without some sense that it is viable? If there is not
> intention for tree-ssa to become mainline, it would be pointless to
> spend money on it, now wouldn't it? Thankfully, others have indeed
> confirmed that tree-ssa is destined for a public debut.
> 
> As I said, it is a catch-22; The folks at the national labs need
> confidence in the practical reality of gfortran before being willing
> to fund it, while the GCC developers refuse to commit to gfortran's
> realization without funding.
> 
> The twain will never meet if both parties remain in their individual
> corners. Thus it was my goal to nudge the two parties toward each
> other, first by getting a sense of the community support for tree-ssa
> and gfortran.

It's correct that ``the gcc developers'' and National Labs will never
meet.  That's because ``the gcc developers'' have no way to even
accept funding, much less propose a schedule.

However, there are many companies and individual contractors who work
with gcc (including my employer, Wasabi Systems).  They are in a
position to accept funding and propose a schedule, just like any other
commercial software developer.  When writing a contract such as this,
it is normal to stipulate that the work must be contributed back to
the mainline of gcc development, and I've seen contracts which even
make some portion of the payment contingent upon the work being
accepted back.

I don't know how National Labs handles their funding, but a typical
way to get them to fund gcc would be to have them issue an RFP for the
work they want done, and make sure that companies which invest in gcc
learn about the RFP and make proposals.  Another typical way would be
to simply provide contact information for the right people at National
Labs, or simply announce that we should go through you.

Ian