dragonegg in FSF gcc?

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 11 April 2010 17:17, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>  I would also add that some of this seems like deja vu from the
> egcs days. Granted it is extremely unlikely, but who is to say that
> at some future date, if the license conflicts subside, that FSF gcc
> might decide that llvm wasn't so bad for the middle/back-ends. Wouldn't
> having the front-end running entirely via the plugin be a huge help
> in that case.

egcs code was always license-compatible with GCC and was always
assigned to the FSF

The difference is quite significant.