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: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
- Cc: Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com, bonzini at gnu dot org, dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com, dberlin at dberlin dot org, dje dot gcc at gmail dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, law at redhat dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com, rguenther at suse dot de, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:37:37 EDT
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.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> <206fcf960903220808w4c04c0e9g74b25a55ea3d8b42@mail.gmail.com> <10903221517.AA05569@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220823s6fe866fdja8c96e60bb3c432c@mail.gmail.com>
> It appears we are currently not using that model. During EGCS lifetine,
> I do not remember we got to this situation where FSF had to disruptively
> interfere with development (whether on branch or not.)
This is obviously a rare occurrence. Nobody can recall any previous such
issue with the SC and I can't recall any such issue when I was the GCC
maintainer. Drawing too many conclusions about "once in a lifetime" events
aren't a good idea.
> So, are you now suggesting that technical decisions where not the
> sole domain of GCC developers? That contradicts the conventional
> understanding we have taken on the issue in the past.
Then you had the wrong understanding. The FSF has ALWAYS had the right to
overrule technical decisions on ANY of their projects. The point is that
this is a right they very rarely exercise.