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: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at wasabisystems dot com>
- To: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 01 Dec 2003 11:42:07 -0500
- Subject: Re: Will tree-ssa be GCC 3.5?
- References: <3FC8E44F.3050105@coyotegulch.com><3FC9272A.4070302@specifixinc.com><87isl2vib1.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com><1070156852.1024.33.camel@leaf.tuliptree.org><20031130015502.GA15984@disaster.jaj.com><3FC95A67.7010703@specifixinc.com> <3FC9F62A.2030309@coyotegulch.com><Pine.BSF.4.58.0312011643580.55975@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at><3FCB6830.3050204@coyotegulch.com>
Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com> writes:
> Sadly, I approached this situation from the wrong direction; I should
> have approached a major vendor (and IBM or Red Hat) first as an
> intermediary. Going directly to "the people" has been less effective
> than I'd hoped.
If you can describe, in some level of detail, a way that going to the
people *would* have been effective, I, for one, would be interested in
hearing it.
I don't mean this to be offensive or patronizing. Funding free
software development is a long-term interest of mine (and of many
other people) and it's a very tough nut to crack. There have been
many suggestions and several implementations of free software
development funding. They have all vanished without a trace, except
for the traditional and straightforward method of contracting directly
for services.
Direct contracts require a formal organization (or a specific
individual) which can sign the contract, and one which can pay
appropriate penalties if the contract is not fulfilled. Specifically,
it must be possible to sue the organization for extreme non-
performance. It is impossible for a loose-knit group like the gcc
development community to sign any sort of contract.
Further discussion on this topic can probably go to fsb@crynwr.com
(http://crynwr.com/fsb/).
Ian