From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1197 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2004 00:45:59 -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 1180 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2004 00:45:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.31.123) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Jan 2004 00:45:58 -0000 Received: by atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 4018) id C52AF4C012E; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:45:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:45:00 -0000 From: Jan Hubicka To: Steven Bosscher Cc: Ziemowit Laski , Geoff Keating , Mark Mitchell , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Phil Edwards Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal Message-ID: <20040113004557.GB23342@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <90200277-4301-11D8-BDBD-000A95B1F520@apple.com> <200401130118.27506.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> <200401130140.09367.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200401130140.09367.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00759.txt.bz2 > On Tuesday 13 January 2004 01:23, Ziemowit Laski wrote: > > On 12 Jan, 2004, at 16.18, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > On Tuesday 13 January 2004 01:11, Ziemowit Laski wrote: > > >> On 12 Jan, 2004, at 15.49, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > >>> Apple (and some other vendors, including CodeSourcery) is in the > > >>> position of doing its own release management and bug-fixing based on > > >>> various versions of GCC. Therefore, having high-quality FSF releases > > >>> may not make much of a difference to Apple; Apple doesn't use it > > >>> directly anyhow. > > >> > > >> And the reason we don't is because the FSF keeps shooting down our > > >> patches. > > >> You just can't have it both ways. > > > > > > And Apple keeps ignoring existing infrastructure. I understand the > > > inconvenience for you, but you should _fix_ patches, not force in. > > > > Please explain what you mean by 'infrastucture' and just how evil Apple > > is ignoring it. > > Not evil. I never said that. I wish I had an Apple. Ask Pinski, > he knows ;-) > > What I mean is that most patches I've seen so far were shot down on > technical grounds, on bad timing (stage3), for not using existing > functions to perform certain actions (feedback-based prefetching), > apparently patents (?) for hot/cold, etc. One of causes of this is the fact that we happent to conflict in an efforts (prefetching, new inlining were both developed independently twice). This is real shame as many of features Apple compiler has would be very, very nice to have in mainline but merging is getting increasingly dificult. It would be great to simply use FSF CVS branch for Apple enhancements and post patches to gcc-patches as they are being developed or released to public. That would make it much easier to notice such an infrastructural conflicts much earlier. I know I can watch Apple's CVS (is there some mainling list?) and I will try to do it in future, but it would be easier if this went in as other patches commonly do. Honza > > > Also please explain how to fix patches that were shot > > down _on principle_, such as my recent AltiVec work. > > That's a language issue that I have no opinion on other than that I > think it would have been wise if Motorola had consulted language > lawyers, but that's the past. Others seem to have them. Do you > think branching 3.4 will suddenly make these people change their > mind? > > Gr. > Steven