This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- 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 10:50:22 -0500
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.com> <20090322050024.GA18893@synopsys.com> <4aca3dc20903220547v8923d55v9ac593f8400be6a9@mail.gmail.com> <10903221258.AA04666@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220718oefa452ek60dcc1d933e1e093@mail.gmail.com> <10903221441.AA05218@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220808w4c04c0e9g74b25a55ea3d8b42@mail.gmail.com> <10903221517.AA05569@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220823s6fe866fdja8c96e60bb3c432c@mail.gmail.com> <10903221537.AA05719@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Richard Kenner
<kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> It appears we are currently not using that model. ?During EGCS lifetine,
>> I do not remember we got to this situation where FSF had to disruptively
>> interfere with development (whether on branch or not.)
>
> This is obviously a rare occurrence. ?Nobody can recall any previous such
> issue with the SC and I can't recall any such issue when I was the GCC
> maintainer. ?Drawing too many conclusions about "once in a lifetime" events
> aren't a good idea.
Drawing one conclusion is not drawing 'too many conclusions'. And,
there is no evidence that this is a "once in a lifetime" issue. Quite
the contrary.
>
>> So, are you now suggesting that technical decisions where not the
>> sole domain of GCC developers? ?That contradicts the conventional
>> understanding ?we have taken on the issue in the past.
>
> Then you had the wrong understanding.
Well, maybe you have the wrong understanding. In the past,
on many occasions, we have acted on the premise that
FSF does not have to interfere with technical decisions made
GCC developers. And you certainly never came hard asserting
the opposite.
-- Gaby