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: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- 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 13:02:02 -0500
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.com> <10903221635.AA06216@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220939j7e9aa849rae11faed19db3c72@mail.gmail.com> <10903221654.AA06335@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220952o1615ba1cyc7a45f5117b1b633@mail.gmail.com> <10903221703.AA06462@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903221005w2e3b1170p1f626c59b87f8e72@mail.gmail.com> <10903221725.AA06648@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903221031v58ec274die8d09405d01449ca@mail.gmail.com> <10903221744.AA06752@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Richard Kenner
<kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> > Yes, I would mind, because it's not MY issue, but RMS's! I don't want
>> > to speculate why RMS might not want to use C++
>>
>> That is non argument: RMS has not not contributed any executable
>> code for GCC, and even less the C++ front-end, for YEARS now.
>
> What does that have to do with expressing philosophical beliefs about how
> software development should be done?
You asserted
I don't want to speculate why RMS might not want to use C++
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But, in this case the users of C++ would be the GCC developers.
Those are the ones directly suffering the handcuffs.
>?You don't lose the right to stop
> doing that about a project you run just because you haven't written any
> code for a while! ?Many managers in software companies haven't written code
> for years but routinely make decision on language choices for projects and
> expect their subordinates to follow those decisions.
and reasonings along those lines are what gets us in the current
mess you claim you do not understand.
BTW, when did FSF turned into a software company?
I thought it was a 501(c)3 donor supported charity, fighting
for the essential freedoms for computer users.
-- Gaby