This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: clang and FSF's strategy
- From: David Kastrup <dak at gnu dot org>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: emacs-devel at gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:27:17 +0100
- Subject: Re: clang and FSF's strategy
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140121201949 dot 21DE1380522 at snark dot thyrsus dot com> <CAKOQZ8yLgvhijZEj0O3CC6Mt4gEJMUF5Bv_EMVnkWCdQPRJ6RA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140122040212 dot GA4026 at thyrsus dot com>
"Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>:
>> I'm sympathetic to our comments regarding GCC vs. clang. But I'm not
>> sure I grasp your proposed solution. GCC does support plugins, and
>> has supported them for a few releases now.
>
> Then I don't understand why David Kastrup's question was even
> controversial.
I must have missed the controversy.
> If I have failed to understand the background facts, I apologize and
> welcome being corrected.
I'll refrain from any comments about wiping the egcs off anybody's face.
My reply to your "call to arms" was actually rooted in as much (or
rather little) actual knowledge of the pertinent situation as your
request appears to have been.
But as you chose an enquiring mail of mine to justify your
confrontational approach, I felt that I should mitigate the damage
purportedly originating from me by addressing those points that I cannot
consider a justifiable conclusion from what I wrote.
--
David Kastrup