Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13) [LWN.net]

From:		Jeff Law <law-AT-redhat.com>
To:		Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr-AT-integrable-solutions.net>
Subject:		Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
Date:		Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:52:59 -0600
Message-ID:		<49C6C14B.6010402@redhat.com>
Cc:		Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc-AT-gmail.com>, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill-AT-oarcorp.com>, Richard Kenner <kenner-AT-vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>, "Joe.Buck-AT-synopsys.com" <Joe.Buck-AT-synopsys.com>, "bonzini-AT-gnu.org" <bonzini-AT-gnu.org>, "dave.korn.cygwin-AT-googlemail.com" <dave.korn.cygwin-AT-googlemail.com>, "dberlin-AT-dberlin.org" <dberlin-AT-dberlin.org>, "dje.gcc-AT-gmail.com" <dje.gcc-AT-gmail.com>, "gcc-AT-gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-AT-gcc.gnu.org>, "mark-AT-codesourcery.com" <mark-AT-codesourcery.com>, "rguenther-AT-suse.de" <rguenther-AT-suse.de>
Archive-link:		Article, Thread

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>   
>>> So what if the FSF hadn't accepted the reality of the day, and had
>>> decided to let egcs *not* be the official GCC?  Would you have pulled
>>> the plug on egcs and gone back to the cathedral?
>>>
>>>       
>> Personally, I would have continued to put my effort into EGCS.  Obviously, I
>> can't speak for other developers specifically, I believe if you compared
>> overall developer participation in the projects, it was clear that EGCS was
>> more viable.
>>     
>
> yes -- and some of us got into GCC, precisely thanks to the open
> development of EGCS.
>   
That's good to hear.

 FWIW, I don't think we're anywhere near the same kind of tipping point 
we faced a dozen years ago.   I believe both sides learned lessons along 
the way and I actually see evidence of that in the simple fact that 
we've got a license and blessing to go forward with a plugin framework.

Jeff

(Log in to post comments)