From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 647 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2010 17:44:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 639 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2010 17:44:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from newsmtp5.atmel.com (HELO sjogate2.atmel.com) (204.2.163.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:44:01 +0000 Received: from csomb01.corp.atmel.com ([10.95.30.150]) by sjogate2.atmel.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id o3CHg03L023409; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:42:00 -0700 (PDT) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: dragonegg in FSF gcc? Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:58:00 -0000 Message-ID: <258DDD1F44B6ED4AAFD4370847CF58D50A5D3E17@csomb01.corp.atmel.com> In-Reply-To: References: From: "Weddington, Eric" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Manuel_L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez?= , "Dave Korn" Cc: "Jack Howarth" , "Steven Bosscher" , "Duncan Sands" , 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/msg00250.txt.bz2 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Manuel L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez [mailto:lopezibanez@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 8:27 AM > To: Dave Korn > Cc: Jack Howarth; Steven Bosscher; Duncan Sands; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: dragonegg in FSF gcc? >=20 > The fact is that it is (perceived as) more difficult to contribute to > GCC than LLVM/Clang for the reasons we all know already. And the > LLVM/Clang project has done an excellent job at presenting itself as > an alternative to GCC for those "neglected" platforms. I am not saying > this in a negative tone. I honestly think GCC could learn a lot about > marketing and usability details from LLVM. >From my perspective (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) it is easier for= LLVM to do such marketing and focus on usability details because they seem= to have a central driver to the project, whether person/group (founder(s)/= champion(s)). GCC is, what I would call, aggressively decentralized; Who wo= uld do such marketing? Who decides what marketing to do? Who decides the us= ability details? Who would work on it? GCC is the epitome of the saying "If= you want something done, do it yourself." There is no central authority wh= o can, or will, make a decision about this. There is a Steering Committee f= or GCC, but as they keep saying at the GCC Summits, their power and scope i= s very limited. Eric Weddington