From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4436 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2012 16:02:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 4423 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2012 16:02:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-gy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-gy0-f175.google.com) (209.85.160.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:02:20 +0000 Received: by ghbz2 with SMTP id z2so1851545ghb.20 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:02:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.18.137 with SMTP id w9mr2898564oed.7.1334332939623; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:02:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.92.168 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:02:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120413060312.GN6148@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20120413142326.GU16117@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics From: Gabriel Dos Reis To: NightStrike Cc: Jakub Jelinek , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Manuel_L=F3pez=2DIb=E1=F1ez?= , Ian Lance Taylor , Lawrence Crowl , Jonathan Wakely , gcc Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/msg00590.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:59 AM, NightStrike wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis > wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM, NightStrike wr= ote: >>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis >>> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM, NightStrike = wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wr= ote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Shooting down a potentially user friendly feature to wait until som= e blue >>>>>>> sky redesign is implemented means it might never be implemented. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a mischaracterization and you know it. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Gaby >>>>> >>>>> It is and it isn't. =A0The guy willing to do the basic color stuff has >>>>> no desire to do what you want. =A0Is there someone else lined up to do >>>>> it? =A0If not, then forcing a wait on it effectively blocks the >>>>> available developer. >>>> >>>> No. When you submit a patch to GCC (whether it is diagnostics or not >>>> is immaterial), you expect that it will get reviewed and recommendatio= ns >>>> will be made about the appropriate way to get it done. =A0Just have a = look >>>> at gcc-patches. =A0There is no thing new here. =A0If the submitter >>>> refused to follow the recommendations, it is unfair it is being shut d= own >>>> or blocked. >>> >>> Be that as it may, at the end of the day, we won't have color gcc if >>> you insist on waiting for the better framework. >> >> Not necessarily. >> >> Would you or Jakub say that he is attempting to shoot down the switch to= C++, >> just =A0because he wants to see some components converted done first >> (blue sky redesigned done first) even though he did not explicitly offer= to >> do that conversion himself, or would =A0you say that he is making a >> recommendation >> of what he considers to be in =A0the best long term interest. I would >> say the latter. >> Orange and apple analogy aside. >> >> >> -- Gaby > > Ok, fine, but then explain to me how color gcc happens if nobody wants > to do the extra work you want? when you said "Ok, fine", which of the two alternatives did you intend? -- Gaby