This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Will tree-ssa be GCC 3.5?
- From: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Cc: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>,gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:00:52 -0500
- Subject: Re: Will tree-ssa be GCC 3.5?
- References: <3FC8E44F.3050105@coyotegulch.com> <3FCAD063.6020200@coyotegulch.com> <3FCADF69.5030704@gnat.com> <200312010917.25287.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
Steven Bosscher wrote:
If GCC wants to have some of that money, then it (as a project) will have to
act like a credible contender, with a sane development timeline and plan, and
without the attitude you're displaying here.
GCC is not a project, it is a piece of software, and as such cannot
properly be said to want some money :-)
The general FSF volunteer community is not the party to act here as a
credible contender. It is not set up to make proposals for money and
guarantee performance. That has to be the domain of companies or
consultants with appropriate expertise.
I've had it with all this "well we can't tell because we're all volunteers"
crap. tree-ssa is being developed almost entirely by people who are being
paid for it. At least three major companies have three or more people
working on it. This is not a volunteers project.
Fine, so it is in the context of these "major companies" that it makes
sense to follow up the issue of getting a specific commitment.
Considering that the basic infrastructure as it is now is not even a year old
and it's really starting to get in shape now. When 3.4 finally goes out,
even more people can help out. tree-ssa _can_ be ready for 3.5.
Can we for once please commit ourselves to something and just say that
tree-ssa will be part of 3.5?
Who is we here? How could such a commitment be made? A commitment
requires a contract between parties, who is the party here. The best
that you can expect is an expression of intent.
Of course one of the companies involved could, for free, give a
commitment, but in the absence of a contract that would still only be an
expression of intent, and not something that could be counted on.
I am sorry that you read my comment as insulting, it was certainly not
intended to be. I was simply pointing out that there is a huge gulf
between wanting something done from the general community, and getting a
contractual guarantee, suitable for incorporation into a mission
critical project plan, that something will be done on a specific schedule.
Robert Dewar