This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: dragonegg in FSF gcc?
- From: "Weddington, Eric" <Eric dot Weddington at atmel dot com>
- To: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>, "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: "Jack Howarth" <howarth at bromo dot med dot uc dot edu>, "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, "Duncan Sands" <baldrick at free dot fr>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:43:03 -0600
- Subject: RE: dragonegg in FSF gcc?
- References: <email@example.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manuel López-Ibáñez [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 8:27 AM
> To: Dave Korn
> Cc: Jack Howarth; Steven Bosscher; Duncan Sands; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: dragonegg in FSF gcc?
> The fact is that it is (perceived as) more difficult to contribute to
> GCC than LLVM/Clang for the reasons we all know already. And the
> LLVM/Clang project has done an excellent job at presenting itself as
> an alternative to GCC for those "neglected" platforms. I am not saying
> this in a negative tone. I honestly think GCC could learn a lot about
> marketing and usability details from LLVM.
>From my perspective (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) it is easier for LLVM to do such marketing and focus on usability details because they seem to have a central driver to the project, whether person/group (founder(s)/champion(s)). GCC is, what I would call, aggressively decentralized; Who would do such marketing? Who decides what marketing to do? Who decides the usability details? Who would work on it? GCC is the epitome of the saying "If you want something done, do it yourself." There is no central authority who can, or will, make a decision about this. There is a Steering Committee for GCC, but as they keep saying at the GCC Summits, their power and scope is very limited.