This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ancient history (was re: reduce dwarf debug size)
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com
- Cc: clattner at apple dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, iant at google dot com
- Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:06:47 EST
- Subject: Re: ancient history (was re: reduce dwarf debug size)
- References: <m3mz2wzhvs.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <CB04DB52-9F4A-4043-87D5-B4393316DACA@apple.com> <45E7656F.4040209@codesourcery.com> <57B0CF14-E869-48BE-8AC1-CD881F6860D0@apple.com> <de8d50360703011700m2c6994b4x722aa45bfaeed858@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0703012004140.4448@caipclassic.rutgers.edu> <de8d50360703011730x73b06889o41a1be2f5cb8518b@mail.gmail.com> <4437282B-AC3F-48FF-A226-513DF9D5E997@apple.com> <m3649jvdt5.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <10703021610.AA07721@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <20070302172803.GA15996@synopsys.com>
> > Indeed I disagree. I'm not aware of any commercial interests on the FSF
> > GCC side. As far as I can recall, the split was between the commercial
> > interests on the EGCS side and the non-commercial interests on the FSF
> > side.
>
> It was not anywhere near that simple; there were a number of disputes
> that had nothing to do with commercial interests (particularly the very
> sorry state of C++). If your interpretation were correct, then after
> the split, the non-commercial idealists would have stayed with the FSF
> side of the split, but this didn't happen for the most part.
I wasn't clear. I agree with you. What I meant was "to the extent that the
split was motivated by commercial interests, I saw it as more commercial
vs. non-commercial than two competing commercial interests", but indeed agree
that was not the only (and probably not even the primary) reason for the
split.