This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PING SC members [was RE: RFA: GCC 4.2.1: Stabalizing coalesce_list's qsort]
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Dave Korn <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- Cc: 'Nick Clifton' <nickc at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, 'Richard Guenther' <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:34:37 -0700
- Subject: Re: PING SC members [was RE: RFA: GCC 4.2.1: Stabalizing coalesce_list's qsort]
- References: <m3sl6ev6iq.fsf@redhat.com> <84fc9c000708220440q2da3c0a5y8fcf5c37a40c54f1@mail.gmail.com> <46CC419C.3050004@redhat.com> <46CDFD4C.9090207@codesourcery.com> <002601c7e89e$62992930$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
Dave Korn wrote:
> On 23 August 2007 22:34, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>> I do think that generating the same code, independent of host system, is
>> a very important property of GCC's design, just like generating the same
>> code independent of whether or not we're compiling with -g.
>
> Hear, hear. I've always thought these principles were meant to be sacrosanct,
> but now I try to look it up, I don't see them explicitly listed in either the
> development methodology, the release criteria, or anywhere else likely-looking.
> Can the SC please consider adding these requirements explicitly to the list of
> "Design and Development Goals" in the mission statement? Or would it make more
> sense as part of the development methodology, or the portability section of the
> gcc-specific coding conventions?
I don't think this needs to be part of the mission statement; it's more
of a technical nitty-gritty than that. But, I think putting into the
coding conventions is a good idea.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713