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: CIL back-end

On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 12:00:36PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Roberto COSTA wrote:
> > It looks like you don't assume such an approval as granted... may I ask 
> > you why?
> Because they have a history of not granting such things, believing that
> it serves to hinder, not further, the goal of free software.
> Really, you'd need to take this up with the SC, and they'll take it up
> with the FSF.

You might as well cut out the middle man and make your case directly to
RMS.  RMS has opposed mechanisms that allow for proprietary front ends
or proprietary back ends to be added to GCC; C output, bytecode output,
etc.  He has his reasons; he believes (with evidence) that the only reason
we have a free C++ compiler and a free Objective-C compiler was that there
wasn't a way for the original authors to make them proprietary but still
use GCC to do the bulk of the optimization and code generation.

The SC has no say about this issue.  Please don't argue about it on this
list, as the man you are arguing with does not read it.

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