Re: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria

[Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>]

On Wed, 3 May 2000, Charles M. Hannum wrote:
> I am also disturbed that, despite contributing considerable work
> (including substantial ARM-related fixes, several fairly important
> frontend fixes, all of the VAX and NS32k updates for egcs, etc.), that
> no NetBSD platforms are considered `interesting' enough to even rate
> on the `second tier' list.

I believe there is a simple reason for that: None has nominated a NetBSD
platform for the "Secondary Evaluation Platforms" list, unless I missed
that.

I don't believe that Mark would reject an offer by NetBSD volunteers to
do the required testing.

> This suggests to me that no matter how much we contribute in good
> faith, that the GCC steering committee is interested only in where it
> perceives the money to be. I suppose from Cygnus/RedHat's perspective
> this makes sense, but I do not think it's the way that the steering
> committee should be headed.

Ugh? I am a steering committee member, and I fail to see that the steering
committee as a whole (nor any individual member, as far as I can tell
from internal discussions, for example) is headed in that direction!

If you read this thread, you'll even notice that Jeff himself has done
testing on BSD machines for previous releases, that I argued strongly in
favor of FreeBSD, and so forth.

> I implore the egcs/GCC steering committee to consider what we can do
> to avoid this happening.  (I have several suggestions, but I will
> discuss them offline for the moment.)

Feel free to contact me directly if you prefer that!

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/