From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13294 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2010 14:30:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 13285 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Apr 2010 14:30:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (HELO bromo.med.uc.edu) (129.137.3.146) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:30:14 +0000 Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bromo.med.uc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45425B006A; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:30:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from howarth@localhost) by bromo.med.uc.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o3BEUBGO008604; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:30:11 -0400 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:33:00 -0000 From: Jack Howarth To: Steven Bosscher Cc: Duncan Sands , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: dragonegg in FSF gcc? Message-ID: <20100411143011.GA8574@bromo.med.uc.edu> References: <20100409163655.GA25781@bromo.med.uc.edu> <4BBF5B7C.7060801@starynkevitch.net> <4BC07718.3060400@free.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 Steven, One other comment. I've felt for awhile that a major strength of FSF gcc was the fact that its support for so many targets insured that latent bugs tended to be found in the compiler. Likewise graphite has recently exposed certain latent bugs as well. Why should we not expect the same to be true for the front-end if an alternative middle/end is used via dragon-egg? It may well tickle unique flaws in the front-end. Jack