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]

Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal

On Tuesday 13 January 2004 01:23, Ziemowit Laski wrote:
> On 12 Jan, 2004, at 16.18, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 January 2004 01:11, Ziemowit Laski wrote:
> >> On 12 Jan, 2004, at 15.49, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >>> Apple (and some other vendors, including CodeSourcery) is in the
> >>> position of doing its own release management and bug-fixing based on
> >>> various versions of GCC.  Therefore, having high-quality FSF releases
> >>> may not make much of a difference to Apple; Apple doesn't use it
> >>> directly anyhow.
> >>
> >> And the reason we don't is because the FSF keeps shooting down our
> >> patches.
> >> You just can't have it both ways.
> >
> > And Apple keeps ignoring existing infrastructure.  I understand the
> > inconvenience for you, but you should _fix_ patches, not force in.
> Please explain what you mean by 'infrastucture' and just how evil Apple
> is ignoring it.

Not evil.  I never said that.  I wish I had an Apple.  Ask Pinski,
he knows ;-)

What I mean is that most patches I've seen so far were shot down on
technical grounds, on bad timing (stage3), for not using existing
functions to perform certain actions (feedback-based prefetching), 
apparently patents (?) for hot/cold, etc.

>  Also please explain how to fix patches that were shot
> down _on principle_, such as my recent AltiVec work.

That's a language issue that I have no opinion on other than that I
think it would have been wise if Motorola had consulted language
lawyers, but that's the past.  Others seem to have them.  Do you
think branching 3.4 will suddenly make these people change their


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