This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>
- Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, "Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com" <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>, "bonzini at gnu dot org" <bonzini at gnu dot org>, "dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com" <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>, "dberlin at dberlin dot org" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, "dje dot gcc at gmail dot com" <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "law at redhat dot com" <law at redhat dot com>, "mark at codesourcery dot com" <mark at codesourcery dot com>, "rguenther at suse dot de" <rguenther at suse dot de>, "stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:12:03 -0500
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.com> <303e1d290903211737u20100ed4ie0c604e2801517a2@mail.gmail.com> <49C58A77.3000805@codesourcery.com> <4aca3dc20903211937k29299a7co9bf4add50a050f71@mail.gmail.com> <20090322050024.GA18893@synopsys.com> <4aca3dc20903220547v8923d55v9ac593f8400be6a9@mail.gmail.com> <10903221258.AA04666@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220718oefa452ek60dcc1d933e1e093@mail.gmail.com> <10903221441.AA05218@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <49C65032.1040701@oarcorp.com>
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Joel Sherrill
<joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com> wrote:
> Richard Kenner wrote:
>>>
>>> I must admit that this interpretation is quite new to me.
>>> It certainly wasn't when EGCS reunited with gcc.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. ?"reuniting with GCC" means "reuniting with the FSF".
>>
>
> Richard's memory is correct here. ?We did not want
> any perception of any company having undue influence.
>
> EGCS was an experiment in development methodologies
> that was intended to open up gcc. ?If successful,
> the goal was to move from being a fork to being
> the main GCC FSF development. ?There was never any
> intention of becoming a non-FSF fork.
I never suggested EGCS was to become non-FSF.
The source code of EGCS was still owned by FSF.
Rather, it is question of letting developers make technical
decisions without disruptive interference from FSF.
>
> gcc 2.95 was where it reunited. ?The egcs fork
> only existed from 1997 until April 1999 when 2.95
> was released.
Yes. Nobody is disputing that.
What disturbs me is the new interpretation of the SC
mission statement.
-- Gaby