This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
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
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing