GCC2 merging (was "native language support now available")

John Vickers jvickers@acorn.com
Wed Sep 30 12:52:00 GMT 1998


Richard Kenner wrote:
> 
>     Why not make EGCS the definitive source base and be done with it.
> 
> Because there remains a need for both types of source bases: one that
> encourages rapid development and testing of experimental code (for the
> development community) and one that encourages stability (for the
> commercial community).

I thought egcs releases these days got a lot more testing
and more systematic testing than gcc2 releases.
I haven't seen a whole lot of traffic on gcc2 regarding testsuite
results
or testing by building known packages (or regarding anything else
for that matter).

Maybe you do a load of testing, & don't talk to anyone about it ?

If you don't, then presumably egcs would be likely to be
the more stable compiler anyway.

> We also would like these companies and
> others to get the benefits of work in EGCS that's ready for production use.

Perhaps it's time to drop the "experimental", which was only
ever really a polite fiction.


> Moreover, so long as that project
> remains in Cygnus, there is another potential conflict: Cygnus is moving to
> become a company who's major product is a proprietary IDE.  That puts it in
> competition with these other companies, most notably Wind River, where
> previously they were working symbiotically.  It's uncomfortable for most
> companies to put control of an important asset in the hands of somebody who
> has become a competitor.  One company I was talking to (not one that I
> listed) is already concerned about this and the problem will get worse, not
> better, over time.



More information about the Gcc mailing list