From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10801 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2003 04:42:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10794 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2003 04:42:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dragon.nuxi.com) (66.93.134.19) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 2003 04:42:37 -0000 Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h744gYQX037202; Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:42:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h744gWlW037201; Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 05:46:00 -0000 From: "David O'Brien" To: Aaron Lehmann Cc: Steven Bosscher , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC Message-ID: <20030804044232.GA33831@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.org References: <1059633859.3637.8.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl> <20030731064707.GA20389@vitelus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030731064707.GA20389@vitelus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD Group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 11:47:07PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 08:44:19AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > I'm not sure why they think it is so difficult. It would seem that if > > the patch is architecture-specific and well-formed (ie. conforming to > > the coding style, etc), it typically just goes in, period. And patches > > to target-independent code may go through one or two review cycles, but > > again, if the patch looks good, it goes in. At least, I got the > > impression that patches are seldomly rejected. > > Copyright assignments. I agree with Robert Dewar about showing evidence that this is the main problem. AMD hired SuSE to do the GCC work for Opteron, so copyright assignments certainly weren't a problem for AMD. I know there are some SuSE amd64(x86-64) patches that never got accepted -- FreeBSD hit the same bugs which the patches would have fixed. I think a much more accurate description would be Zack's "A Maintenance Programmer's View of GCC" from the Ottawa GCC Summit. My last patch trying to add a "GCC_OPTIONS" environmental variable was for AMD and some very large ISV's benefit. Didn't go in, and not for copyright assignment issues.