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 12:08:43 EDT
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.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> <10903221537.AA05719@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220850w3c8c01f9o7efe6833af8d770e@mail.gmail.com>
> Drawing one conclusion is not drawing 'too many conclusions'. And,
> there is no evidence that this is a "once in a lifetime" issue. Quite
> the contrary.
What's the evidence to the contrary? When else has the FSF made a
request that affects *development* as opposed to a release (other than
licensing and issues affecting the principle of free software, which
everybody agrees they have a right to)?
> Well, maybe you have the wrong understanding. In the past, on many
> occasions, we have acted on the premise that FSF does not have to
> interfere with technical decisions made GCC developers. And you
> certainly never came hard asserting the opposite.
I don't think you meant what you wrote. Nobody said that the FSF *has
to* interfere with technical decisions, nor that they, as a matter of
usual course, *do* interfere with them. The issue is whether they, as
the owner of the project, *can* interfere with them if they so choose.
And it's always been clear to me (and, from his response, to Mark)
that they can.