Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
[Posted April 1, 2009 by jake]
| From: |
| Joe Buck <Joe.Buck-AT-synopsys.COM> |
| To: |
| Daniel Berlin <dberlin-AT-dberlin.org> |
| Subject: |
| Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13) |
| Date: |
| Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:32:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID: |
| <20090323063233.GA22165@synopsys.com> |
| Cc: |
| Mark Mitchell <mark-AT-codesourcery.com>, David Edelsohn <dje.gcc-AT-gmail.com>, Richard Kenner <kenner-AT-vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>, "bonzini-AT-gnu.org" <bonzini-AT-gnu.org>, "dave.korn.cygwin-AT-googlemail.com" <dave.korn.cygwin-AT-googlemail.com>, "gcc-AT-gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-AT-gcc.gnu.org>, "law-AT-redhat.com" <law-AT-redhat.com>, "rguenther-AT-suse.de" <rguenther-AT-suse.de>, "stevenb.gcc-AT-gmail.com" <stevenb.gcc-AT-gmail.com> |
| Archive‑link: | |
Article |
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 05:47:52AM -0700, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Let's see, just in the somewhat recent past:
> Writing out the IL
> Plugins
> Changing over the bug system
> Hosting on sourceware.org
> Moving to subversion
You're mixing a number of things together here, some of which seem to
argue against your point. RMS said he didn't want gcc to move to
subversion; gcc moved to subversion anyway. He didn't prevail on that
one. RMS wanted to have gcc use machines administered by the FSF; we
pushed back. gcc.gnu.org is sourceware.org. We did agree that we
wouldn't do things that the FSF considers objectionable on gcc.gnu.org,
like link to pages that promote proprietary software. But that's no big
deal. RMS didn't want us to use bugzilla; we insisted. We use
bugzilla. So on purely technical matters, often RMS did not get his way.
We did let him get his way on his fears about writing out the IL, and
plugins, but we didn't like it, so we worked out a compromise, the runtime
exception language (thanks, David Edelsohn for all your work on this).
Now that compromise has taken much much longer than we'd like to get
right, hence the current holdup.
