This is the mail archive of the 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]
Other format: [Raw text]


On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 11:47:07PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 08:44:19AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > I'm not sure why they think it is so difficult.  It would seem that if
> > the patch is architecture-specific and well-formed (ie. conforming to
> > the coding style, etc), it typically just goes in, period.  And patches
> > to target-independent code may go through one or two review cycles, but
> > again, if the patch looks good, it goes in.  At least, I got the
> > impression that patches are seldomly rejected.
> Copyright assignments.

I agree with Robert Dewar about showing evidence that this is the main
problem.  AMD hired SuSE to do the GCC work for Opteron, so copyright
assignments certainly weren't a problem for AMD.  I know there are some
SuSE amd64(x86-64) patches that never got accepted -- FreeBSD hit the
same bugs which the patches would have fixed.

I think a much more accurate description would be Zack's "A Maintenance
Programmer's View of GCC" from the Ottawa GCC Summit.  My last patch
trying to add a "GCC_OPTIONS" environmental variable was for AMD and some
very large ISV's benefit.  Didn't go in, and not for copyright assignment

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