From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8250 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2012 23:45:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 8237 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2012 23:44:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:44:44 +0000 Received: by wgbed3 with SMTP id ed3so2931088wgb.8 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:44:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.136.145 with SMTP id w17mr1906133wei.98.1334360683228; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:44:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.99] (cpc3-cmbg8-0-0-cust629.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com. [82.6.102.118]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u9sm286605wix.0.2012.04.13.16.44.41 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F88BA8B.4050305@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:45:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernd Schmidt CC: Torvald Riegel , Richard Guenther , Michael Matz , Xinliang David Li , Jakub Jelinek , Gabriel Dos Reis , David Edelsohn , Diego Novillo , gcc Subject: Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8 References: <4F7B356E.9080003@google.com> <4F7C35A3.3080207@codesourcery.com> <20120410084614.GJ6148@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <1334078968.11195.64.camel@triegel.csb> <1334149073.3101.23.camel@triegel.csb> <4F85856B.5020406@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4F85856B.5020406@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00615.txt.bz2 On 11/04/2012 14:21, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 04/11/2012 02:57 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote: >> However, the concern you raised is only one part of the problem. The >> other is that, put in a simplified way, GCC is competing with LLVM about >> new and/or non-fulltime-compiler developers. For me, it looks like LLVM >> is more appealing to them, and I believe part of the reason for that is >> the codebase. > > There seem to be other opinions as well, some voiced in this thread, > which just supports my argument that you can't do it right for everyone. > Part of the reason LLVM is appealing may just be advertising, which we > don't do at all, perhaps due to the deep-seated inferiority complex we > have about gcc. Inferiority complex? I think this thread suggests (and perhaps the -Wall thread too) that we're more in danger of complacently resting on our laurels. We have huge inertia, but just because we've always been the big name in embedded toolkits doesn't mean we always will be. cheers, DaveK