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: Criteria for GCC 4.0

Steven Bosscher wrote:
FWIW, many vendors, like SUSE, allow their people to work on what
they think is necessary.  Take for example the call graph code, which
wasn't a vendor idea, but just an inspired moment by Honza.  I think
that in many cases the vendors don't drive the development of GCC at all.

But the kind of people who work for distro vendors have a specific range of experience and knowledge; that's no knock against them, just a fact. SuSE isn't going to hire a scientist who write research code; it isn't in SuSE's interest. I doubt SuSE would fund a developer who, say, went off trying to add an esoteric frontend to GCC, since that doesn't accomplish anything for SuSE.

That doesn't say SuSE is wrong -- I'm merely recognizing that the environment focuses development and information into certain quarters. Kind of like the heat and humidity keep people indoors in Florida -- it's the environment they live in. That doesn't make a moral statement about the universe; it's merely a recognition of the facts.

Hence the perception among some GCC developers that GCC "tree-ssa" really isn't going to impact people -- their companies don't have a great interest in Fortran or Java, and changes in those languages don't affect C programmers.

What is wrong with trying to communicate better? Doing so would benefit everyone.


Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing

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