Re: Will tree-ssa be GCC 3.5?

[Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> 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'm an idealist at heart; sometimes, I forget to be cynical.

> I don't mean this to be offensive or patronizing.

No offense taken; you lay out your position quite politely.

> 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.

Don't I know it. I was first attracted to free software by its ideals,
not its price. As it is, I am contracting directly for free software
development with some of my customers. I was hoping that something so
universal and fundamental as a compiler could be a less mercenary pursuit...

> 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.

Of course, a contract isn't the real issue; no contract will exist if 
there is no confidence in gfortran's future. I simply wanted to get a 
better sense of gfortran's state.

Ah, but the simplest questions are often the most dangerous ones...

..Scott


--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing