gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?

[Alec Teal]

On 23/01/13 07:11, Uday Khedker wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday 22 January 2013 10:27 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
>>> Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
>>> understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
>>> documentation.  There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in people that
>>> could disappear with one bus factor.
>>
>> That is definitely a worthwhile goal, and one that's had mixed success
>> in the past, but:
>>
>> - compilers are extremely complex programs and there's a limit to how
>>    much even the best-written internals documentation can explain
>> - even fewer people are interested and competant to write such 
>> documentation
>>    as there are to do the necessary development work
>>
>
>
> This is because no matter what one has done, unless one has 
> contributed code, one is not considered a contributor to GCC.
>
> I had said in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-11/msg00270.html
>
>>
>> So while we continue to improve the technology, we have to also give 
>> due importance to making it easier for newer people to become 
>> contributors to the technology.
>>
>> GCC is not just about a code that works. It is also about building 
>> succinct explanations of what that code is and why it has been 
>> designed the way it is.
>
> The way code maintainers are appointed, I think we need to identify 
> and appoint people who would be willing to take the responsibility so 
> that the developers could rally around such activities to make them 
> more meaningful. We need to build a group whose primary responsibility 
> is not development but who understand the nuances of the development 
> and can engage with academia and attract people who can contribute to 
> GCC.
> And such a group cannot be identified using the criteria of code 
> submitted.
>
> For every piece of code, there are dozens of people who take keen 
> interest in it, express opinion on it, review it critically and 
> contribute to improving it because eventually it could go in the 
> compiler.
>
> Unless there is an express statement from the steering committee that 
> tutorials and training material should be accorded a similar status, 
> they would remain neglected and personal projects with limited reach.
> Of course even in the presence of an official mandate, there is no 
> guarantee that things will change but we would not know until we have 
> tried :-)
>
>
> Uday.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Uday Khedker
> Professor
> Department of Computer Science & Engg.
> IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India.
> Email   :     uday@cse.iitb.ac.in
> Homepage:     http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~uday
> Phone   :
> Office -     91 (22) 2572 2545 x 7717, 91 (22) 2576 7717 (Direct)
> Res.   -     91 (22) 2572 2545 x 8717, 91 (22) 2576 8717 (Direct)
>
>
So in all seriousness, why GCC? I suppose the volume of LLVM/Clang stuff 
saying how great it is is misleading? Please link GCCs half or write a 
good few pages on it please. This is serious I'd love to read it and 
know more of how the two differ. I fear this coming across as sarcastic 
but really no, I'd love to read such a thing.

BTW I plan to get involved, I'm new, GCC is massive....

Alec