From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E53D33858C33 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 14:41:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org E53D33858C33 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1664894487; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NnEJvZKazT7Vpa7YGXW6kHkAKhbxuQAZ1+sXolCV52U=; b=azH0GO9PF6C0S9YzpnzmfpivAQWx2m3HI7iHm7zU5MdQ4oQ8s69AvRr8Uxw7mGYNMrSYOw HGvVrVFH2N4fnv90bwfgsKKzE+STco/P/O7LwH8RUdh5o4/kNrX/bSRshh6p5SC8XMUvXb 76JRWRrWZNSzMhpuk+JvZHH5xCrQ6Vw= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-205-LwPmJQbhM-qbKGCwTm7KDA-1; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 10:41:22 -0400 X-MC-Unique: LwPmJQbhM-qbKGCwTm7KDA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6F712999B2D; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 14:41:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.2.17.198]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FD9D140EBF3; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 14:41:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fche by redhat.com with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1ofj6g-0004Vp-Fc; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 10:41:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:41:14 -0400 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Cc: Overseers mailing list , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , gdb@sourceware.org, Mark Wielaard , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project Message-ID: <20221004144114.GB15858@redhat.com> References: <6f6d141b-b776-8707-2c91-dc38d20aa9e1@gotplt.org> <9ec804c9-1bbe-42ac-07a4-69df5c83b559@gotplt.org> <20221004141900.GA15858@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.0 (2019-05-25) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.7 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi - > > > I don't see a risk to freedom. The GNU toolchain is quite underfunded > > > compared to llvm/clang and IMO it's a major risk to maintain status quo on > > > that front. The GTI opens new avenues for funding aspects of the GNU > > > toolchain without affecting its core governance. > > > > What aspects of the gnu toolchain are open to being funded via the > > LF/GTI proposal, -other than- the vast majority of the funds being > > redirected to its own managed services infrastructure? > > This current proposal is limited to infrastructure, which has ever-growing > needs. I'm afraid I don't understand then what the point of comparing to LLVM with respect to competitiveness or freedom was. AIUI, infrastructure is an enabler, not really a competitive differentiator. > Do you think the current proposal is not an upgrade to what we > currently have? I don't know. I am not under the impression that infrastructure is holding back development on any of these projects. Further, I suspect that if the communities were given a choice to direct the sponsors' generous donations toward new development type work, they may well prefer that. Is that possibility on offer? - FChE