Re: Fwd: LLVM collaboration?

[Renato Golin <renato dot golin at linaro dot org>]

On 7 February 2014 23:30, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> I think there are other closely related issues, as GCC people try to work
> around issues with glibc, or vice versa, rather than coordinating what
> might be the best solution involving changes to both components,

Hi Joseph,

Thanks for the huge email, all of it (IMHO) was spot on. I agree with
your arguments, and one of the reasons why I finally sent the email,
is that I'm starting to see all this on LLVM, too.

Because of licenses, we have to replicate libgcc, libstdc++, the
linker, etc. And in many ways, features get added to random places
because it's the easiest route, or because it's the right place to be,
even though there isn't anything controlling or monitoring the feature
in the grand scheme of things. This will, in the end, invariably take
us through the route that GNU crossed a few years back, when people
had to use radioactive suites to work on some parts of GCC.

So, I guess my email was more of a cry for help, than a request to
play nice (as some would infer). I don't think we should repeat the
same mistakes you guys did, but I also think that we have a lot to
offer, as you mention, in looking at extensions and proposing to
standards, or keeping kernel requests sane, and having a unison
argument on specific changes, and so on.

The perfect world would be if any compiler could use any assembler,
linker and libraries, interchangeably. While that may never happen, as
a long term goal, this would at least draw us a nice asymptote to
follow. As every one here and there, I don't have enough time to work
through every detail and follow all lists, but if we encourage the
cross over, or even cross posting between the two lists, we might
solve common problems without incurring in additional time wasted.

--renato