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 11:39:13 -0500
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.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> <206fcf960903220850w3c8c01f9o7efe6833af8d770e@mail.gmail.com> <10903221608.AA05964@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220924q150584b3lfb9da7cf2ecee80c@mail.gmail.com> <10903221635.AA06216@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Richard Kenner
<kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> 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
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-07/msg00588.html
> 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.
Yes, surely you have heard of stonewalling use of C++ to directly
express some of the abstractions we use in the compiler.
-- Gaby