OSNews

GCC drops platforms because nobody maintains them. In other words, the community does not care so much about them as you say, because they'd support it if they really cared.

You have two choices: The dictadure of the minority or the dictadure of the majority. You're free to choose the dictadure of the minority, but don't expect the majority to care about you.

GCC drops platforms because nobody maintains them. In other words, the community does not care so much about them as you say, because they'd support it if they really cared.

I don't think you can realistically say that. Compilers are one of the most complex types of software projects there are. Very, very, few people are capable of contributing to a modern compiler.

Also, ones of the major reasons for this PCC movement is that the GCC code is difficult to work with by design.

Things have to be REALLY bad to reach the point where people think it's easier to take a primative compiler an get it up to speed than it is to work with an existing one.

>free to choose the dictadure of the minority

Or some people call this some respect for the minority to some extent. This big community you're speaking of, is out of laziness almost instantly ready to axe a project.

Because the OpenBSD project didn't have either the desire or the means to maintain GCC's niche architecture support? I suppose it must be a lack of desire, since a lack of means would be a problem if they intend to implement all of these architectures for an alternative compiler on their own.

GCC clearly isn't where it needs to be as the keystone of the free software toolchain. Hopefully some good ideas will come out of PCC. In the free software world, you must never be afraid of competition. However, for practical reasons I have a hard time envisioning PCC becoming a successful project in its own right. It seems the odds are stacked against them. It also seems that OpenBSD has more important challenges that they could be focusing on. I feel that PCC could become a distraction.

On the whole, I think that PCC is an interesting project whose progress should be watched closely. I'm glad that somebody is undertaking this challenge, as you have to be a glutton for punishment to reinvent the compiler suite. The legendary Fred Brooks remarked that his troubled project to develop an Algol compiler for OS/360 taught him that compilers generally take three times longer than expected to develop.

Well, it does primarily aim to be a C compiler, not an "everything-and-the-kitchen-sink" compiler that GCC is. That cuts down the scope quite a bit.
(Fortran? News flash, it's not 1975 anymore...)



Like what? Being ignored by the GCC people?
Obviously they've grown weary of battling GCC and took a good look at the alternatives. These decisions arent made overnight, although a lot of people here (most certainly almost all non-developers) seems to think so.

Either way, OpenBSD's goal for PCC is to have it build the base system, not all of ports, so it does not have to deal with all those "esoteric" GCC features. GCC will still be in ports and will most likely be required to build many ports for a long time to come.

GCC clearly isn't where it needs to be as the keystone of the free software toolchain.

It seems everybody enjoys bitching about GCC, but I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why the above statement is true.

>I suppose it must be a lack of desire, since a lack of means would be a problem if they intend to implement all of these architectures for an alternative compiler on their own.

It's always nice to read OSNews, where people are full of FUD because of massive lack of any knowledge.

1.) it's primary a NetBSD project
2.) OpenBSD will contribute to it (and some FreeBSD developers too)
3.) if you read the interview, it's somewhat an idea for future development

Last not least, they have a lack of developers. And don't forget they're eager to use such a compiler because it's easier to maintain in the long run.

GCC drops an architechture only if it's
1. unmaintained.
2. Has been marked as deprecated for two releases (two years).
3. Has issues that nobody is fixining due to the lack of a maintainer.

So if the community relly wants this arch, why doesn't anyone just send a mail to the gcc list during those two years and complain? Or preferably submit some patches? And if the arch has been dropped they can always fix it and resubmit it.