This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: rs6000.c / PPc-EABI / VxWorks / varargs / 2.95.2 vs. 2.7.2




  Hi David, and thanks for replying. BTW, sorry about the lack of a From:
header on that post of mine - I've been trying to get around the RBL which
has my ISP blocked by setting up a dummy mailaccount that I could use just
for sending, that goes straight into cygnus' mailserver; I guess I have 
malconfigured something. This one is from my real email address, but won't
get through to the list! D'oh!


>	The "newppc" branch work was performed long after gcc-2.95.2 was
>released.  I would suggest that you complain to VxWork that they cooperate
>better with the rest of the GCC development community -- both contributing
>their changes and utilizing improvements in the FSF releases.  You are
>demonstrating the exact problem with forking a private copy.


  Well I guess I've misinterpreted the timing and implications of what the
newppc branch was about. Are you able to clue me in about whether there
*were* changes to the eabi calling conventions implementation in between
egcs 2.7.2 and gcc 2.95.2?  If not then I can deduce that it was the case 
that WRS diverged their code away from the gcc line *before* they issued
2.7.2, rather than (as I have been assuming until now) that WRS stood still
at 2.7.2 while gcc moved on to 2.95.2.


  FWIW, I fully agree with you that WRS should take their responsibilities
to the FSF and GCC community seriously. They've saved themselves millions 
of bucks and hundreds of man-years of R+D by having Gcc handed to them on 
a plate, yet they aren't willing to give back. I think that's just shameful.
Alas, they pay little heed to their customers. I've had a serious go at
getting them to fulfill their support agreement by fixing their faulty
compiler, and they told me (more-or-less) that they know it doesn't work and
aren't going to do anything about it.  OTOH, Mike Stump has been prominent
on the lists recently, so I kind-of-assumed that WRS had gotten it's 
attitude sorted out. Is he acting independently as a maintainer, rather
than being a serious liaison between GCC and WRS?


  Anyway thanks for taking the time to inform me. And rest assured that
any worthwhile hacks *I* can come up with *will* be submitted as patches.


    cheers,
        DaveK
-- 
The Boulder Pledge: "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything 
offered to me as the result of an unsolicited email message. Nor will I 
forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large 
numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online
community."


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]