Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal

[Ziemowit Laski <zlaski at apple dot com>]

On 12 Jan, 2004, at 16.45, Jan Hubicka wrote:

> > On Tuesday 13 January 2004 01:23, Ziemowit Laski wrote:
> > > On 12 Jan, 2004, at 16.18, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 13 January 2004 01:11, Ziemowit Laski wrote:
> > > > > On 12 Jan, 2004, at 15.49, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > > > > > Apple (and some other vendors, including CodeSourcery) is in the
> > > > > > position of doing its own release management and bug-fixing based 
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > various versions of GCC.  Therefore, having high-quality FSF 
> > > > > > releases
> > > > > > may not make much of a difference to Apple; Apple doesn't use it
> > > > > > directly anyhow.
> > > > >
> > > > > And the reason we don't is because the FSF keeps shooting down our
> > > > > patches.
> > > > > You just can't have it both ways.
> > > >
> > > > And Apple keeps ignoring existing infrastructure.  I understand the
> > > > inconvenience for you, but you should _fix_ patches, not force in.
> > >
> > > Please explain what you mean by 'infrastucture' and just how evil 
> > > Apple
> > > is ignoring it.
> >
> > Not evil.  I never said that.  I wish I had an Apple.  Ask Pinski,
> > he knows ;-)
> >
> > What I mean is that most patches I've seen so far were shot down on
> > technical grounds, on bad timing (stage3), for not using existing
> > functions to perform certain actions (feedback-based prefetching),
> > apparently patents (?) for hot/cold, etc.
>
> One of causes of this is the fact that we happent to conflict in an
> efforts (prefetching, new inlining were both developed independently
> twice).  This is real shame as many of features Apple compiler has 
> would
> be very, very nice to have in mainline but merging is getting
> increasingly dificult.
> It would be great to simply use FSF CVS branch for Apple enhancements
> and post patches to gcc-patches as they are being developed or released
> to public.
>
> That would make it much easier to notice such an infrastructural
> conflicts much earlier.  I know I can watch Apple's CVS (is there some
> mainling list?) and I will try to do it in future, but it would be
> easier if this went in as other patches commonly do.

That's actually a very good point.  I'll forward this internally to the
powers that be for consideration.

--Zem
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ziemowit Laski                 1 Infinite Loop, MS 301-2K
Mac OS X Compiler Group        Cupertino, CA USA  95014-2083
Apple Computer, Inc.           +1.408.974.6229  Fax .5477