This is the mail archive of the 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: type consistency of gimple

Michael Matz wrote:

>> pressure build on some set of infrastructure until it has been painfully
>> obvious for some amount of time that it has to change.  (In my
>> experience, the same thing happens in developing proprietary software;
>> convincing product management to let you spend significant time fixing
>> something that's not on the next release's feature list requires some
>> good salesmanship.)
> How true :)  Nevertheless the goals for the FSF GCC should IMHO be purely 
> based on rather technical arguments and considerations, not the drive by 
> paying customers.

Even when I was contributing purely as a volunteer, I had motivations of
my own, like wanting to use a particular feature in a program I was
writing.  I don't think we can realistically expect that the SC can set
up a master plan for everyone to follow.

The SC or the maintainers are in my opinion completely justified in
blocking the inclusion of a technically inferior patch, even if it has
some short-term benefit.  There's no reason that any contributor should
get to jam in a patch that's going to make things hard for everyone else
in future.  So, I'm not arguing that "whoever gets there first wins", by
any means.  But, I don't think we can ignore the motivations of
contributors, either; we've got to accept that they'll invest
time/effort/money in GCC only to the extent they see return on that

Mark Mitchell
(650) 331-3385 x713

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