Will tree-ssa be GCC 3.5?

[Scott Robert Ladd]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> What is the goal here?  The goal is probably not a tree-ssa
> implementation of gfortran.  The goal is an implementation of gfortran
> using some technology.  That goal could be achieved.

Yes. Although it seems a shame to waste the existing effort in tree-ssa.

> Why are these the right questions?  Who cares what the underlying
> technology is, provided the resulting compiler works well?

Again, I completely agree. One of the questions I was asked is: Could 
the existing gfortran be modified to support non-GCC backends? The 
question is fraught with technical and legal issues...

> If some company writes a contract to develop a solid gfortran
> compiler, that company takes on the responsibility of making it happen
> one way or another.  That company must judge whether to make sure that
> tree-ssa happens, or whether to support gfortran using a different
> approach.

One requirement is that the compiler support numerous platforms; 
currently, GCC is the only existing solution. Again, it would be a shame 
to reject the existing work in GCC to reinvent the wheel.

> Naturally.  You have to write a contract that makes sense for you.

But can such a contract be written within the restrictions of the GPL? 
For example, could the GPL's gfortran frontend and libraries be used 
with a non-free backend?

-- 
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing