This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: PING SC members [was RE: RFA: GCC 4.2.1: Stabalizing coalesce_list's qsort]
- From: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- To: "'Gerald Pfeifer'" <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, "'Mark Mitchell'" <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "'Nick Clifton'" <nickc at redhat dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "'Richard Guenther'" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:40:03 +0100
- Subject: RE: PING SC members [was RE: RFA: GCC 4.2.1: Stabalizing coalesce_list's qsort]
- References: <m3sl6ev6iq.fsf@redhat.com> <84fc9c000708220440q2da3c0a5y8fcf5c37a40c54f1@mail.gmail.com> <46CC419C.3050004@redhat.com> <46CDFD4C.9090207@codesourcery.com> <002601c7e89e$62992930$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <46D3D00D.3020407@codesourcery.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709170127250.2311@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
On 17 September 2007 00:28, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>>> I do think that generating the same code, independent of host system, is
>>>> a very important property of GCC's design, just like generating the same
>>>> code independent of whether or not we're compiling with -g.
>>> Can the SC please consider adding these requirements explicitly to
>>> the list of "Design and Development Goals" in the mission statement?
>>> Or would it make more sense as part of the development methodology, or
>>> the portability section of the gcc-specific coding conventions?
>> I don't think this needs to be part of the mission statement; it's more
>> of a technical nitty-gritty than that. But, I think putting into the
>> coding conventions is a good idea.
>
> Seconded. Dave, want to give it a try? ;-)
>
> Gerald
Yep, but I have a bit of backlog, won't be until later this week.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....