This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Why are GCC Internals not Specification Driven ?
- From: Seima Rao <seimarao at gmail dot com>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 19:36:47 +0530
- Subject: Re: Why are GCC Internals not Specification Driven ?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAESP5aq7R=zxozDPTSJMnKWLF_TkyVCu6UssKPz97SoOXyz4Cg@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com>
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:48 AM, DJ Delorie <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Seima Rao <email@example.com> 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 ;-)
Got your point that GCC is more inclined as a reference then a
specification driven technology.