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 12:35:50 EDT
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.com> <10903221258.AA04666@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <email@example.com> <10903221441.AA05218@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <10903221517.AA05569@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <email@example.com> <10903221537.AA05719@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <10903221608.AA05964@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <email@example.com>
> In the past, RMS had asserted that use some specific programming
> language with an international standard developed by ISO
> was unacceptable for the GNU project (and GCC in particular).
> That had had the practical effect of delaying for years,
> developments of projects both in GCC and directly related to GCC.
I'm not sure I understand your reference, but those are clearly generic
issues relating to management of FSF projects overall and to philosophical
issues related to Free Software. That's very clearly the prerogative of
the FSF. What I heard claimed was that there was interference in the
*technical* issues, such as when to take branches or similar specific
technical choices. I've heard of no such examples before this one.