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: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1 writes:

| People are starting to make assumptions about the intent and action of
| the LSB, which is unfair because it begins to spread FUD without being
| based on any facts. I'd like to try to clarify some of this.
| * The LSB created the spec in a vaccum:
| We have had GCC developers at our face to face meetings, and on some of
| our weekly phone calls. We have asked the GCC/C++ community for comments &
| feedback on both the specification, and on the code we use for testing
| the C++ ABI. We received no comments when we asked for a review.
| Normally, silence is intepreted as consent.
| We submitted a patch to gcc months ago to expose the additional symbols
| we thought should have been visible. This went into 3.4 then, and into
| 3.3 recently. Again, these action could be intepreted as consent.

Please, when you post a followup supposed to be a clarification, do
make sure that the "FUD" you're perceiving are actually taken from
real messages; in particular do provide references; make your message
accurate, otherwise it is just another FUD.

3.3 is a released version of GCC by itself.  I have not seen any LSB
specific patch that went in that release.

If you're talking about GCC-3.3.5 prerelease, then please do observe
two things:

  (1) Claiming LSB meets any released version of the GCC-3.3.x
      series is simply false.  That patch does not even qualify
      according to the check-in policy I've stated when gcc-3_3-branch
      was unfrozen.  I made a special case, in the hope of helping the
      GCC community.  Please, do not interpret that as me working closely
      with you to define LSB-2.0.  I was put before the fact.  I had
      basically two choices: (a) refuse the patch,  be consistent with
      the check-in policy and potentially be useless for people
      interested in a useful LSB-2.0; (b) be opportunist and make
      GCC-3.3.5 more useful to a wider community.
      Don't press this button too hard.

  (2) *Interpreting* something as a consent does not mean that the
       whole issue was worked out together.

-- Gaby

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