This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: History of GCC
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: iant at google dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, law at redhat dot com, whh8b at virginia dot edu
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:33:56 EDT
- Subject: Re: History of GCC
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAE+MWFvVTkYjypsL3PLDk=qx_+VDNwRR0=YRN_dMqQHsDpNynw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKOQZ8xF6+_pSbnQ1Ku=PuF8Wkfq7siXHA47fQbGzAO29kSxvg@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <CAE+MWFtbm1fvo=ZkMbcQDiQ+dObZ_8jV84ZN1x2RK6k8P0=J4g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKOQZ8w39fKKAH5KjajaFhEKR-MNLNBygCk8iaZCp5ix1Sg2vQ@mail.gmail.com>
> I don't think that employer interests have led to any significant
> conflicts between employer interests and project interests. It's sort
> of hard to say, though, because in effect employer interests have
> become project interests.
And indeed many people who've been working on GCC for a long time
(including you and me) have moved from one organization to another
during that time (sometimes more than once).
> That said, from a certain perspective it would be reasonable to call
> the EGCS split a conflict between employer interests and project
> interests. Although many people supported the EGCS split, it was
> driven initially by Cygnus.
But that could also have been viewed as a conflict between FSF interests
and GCC project interests. As you say, it's hard to point to a specific
conflict because, for the most part, all the interests aligned: everybody
wanted the best compiler we could product.