This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Why are GCC Internals not Specification Driven ?
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: Seima Rao <seimarao at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 15:18:52 -0500
- Subject: Re: Why are GCC Internals not Specification Driven ?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAESP5aq7R=zxozDPTSJMnKWLF_TkyVCu6UssKPz97SoOXyz4Cg@mail.gmail.com>
Seima Rao <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Has gcc become proprietory/commercial ?
By definition: no, yes. It's been this way since the beginning, and
hasn't changed in decades.
> Or has it become illegal to publish specification models
> of gcc internals ? Does this make the product sell less ?
This sounds like you're trying to start an argument, instead of asking a
simple question. It is certainly not illegal to publish our
specifications, and we certainly *do* publish many of our specifications
(have you read the internals manual? You don't say whether or not you
did, but that would be a key bit of information to have disclosed).
Whether the product "sells" or not is rarely a driving factor for our
project. Most of us work on it because we need it to work better for
our own purposes.
If you have specific questions about our documentation or development
process, please ask them. Please do not ask vague, leading, and
emotionally loaded questions. RTL and Gimple are documented. Are they
documemented well? That depends on your needs. Are they documented as
well as they could be? Probably not, but good enough for us so far.
And as always, if you want to improve the situation, by all means feel
free to volunteer to do so ;-)