This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
- Cc: Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com, bonzini at gnu dot org, dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com, dberlin at dberlin dot org, dje dot gcc at gmail dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, law at redhat dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com, rguenther at suse dot de, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:17:42 EDT
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <49C58A77.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20090322050024.GA18893@synopsys.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <10903221258.AA04666@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <email@example.com> <10903221441.AA05218@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> but FSF still owned the copyright of the codes of EGCS; so it wasn't
> reuniting with FSF interfering with technical decisions.
I don't follow. There's a difference between working on code whose
copyright is held by the FSF and working as part of an FSF-endorsed
> At the time, nobody explained that the SC concluded the EGCS
> experience was a failure and therefore the EGCS community
> should surrender and abandon the very reasons it emerged.
No, indeed the opposite occured: it was concluded that the EGCS experience
was a SUCCESS and that the FSF should use that model for its future
development of GCC.
> It was my understanding that it was a compromise, but the
> EGCS community retains all rights to make technical
> decisions without disruptive interferences from FSF
Your understanding is incorrect. Independence from the FSF was never an