Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Sat 19th Nov 2005 08:26 UTC, submitted by resistor
Thread beginning with comment 62173
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: There will be political resistance from GCC
by on Sat 19th Nov 2005 13:40
in reply to "RE: There will be political resistance from GCC"
RE[2]: There will be political resistance from GCC
by on Sat 19th Nov 2005 16:00
in reply to "RE: There will be political resistance from GCC"
Then again, I heard that the GCC people now were considering including ProPolice
That's not quite correct. The GCC people initially rejected ProPolice since their review comments were not addressed by the IBM programmer(s) who worked on ProPolice. The GCC people are not reconsidering this position.
However, a new implementation is currently being written by the GCC people themselves, and it will be one that meets the GCC maintainers' requirements. This implementation will not be called ProPolice.
RE[3]: There will be political resistance from GCC
by DevL on Sun 20th Nov 2005 13:57
in reply to "RE[2]: There will be political resistance from GCC"






Member since:
2005-07-06
"The only way Apple could have success here would be to fork gcc, call it like, er, "agcs" and improve it so drastically that the mainstream is eventually forced to merge-up and include their desired backend on that route."
On a side note, OpenBSD has rolled their own modified version of GCC for a long time now as they include ProPolice in their version. On the other hand, they're still stuck on version 2.95.3. Then again, I heard that the GCC people now were considering including ProPolice, so there just might be a chance of seeing technological advancement get the upper hand of politics once in a while.
[Correction: They're mostly stuck on 2.95-3. Some architectures have a more recent 3.x version of GCC.]
Edited 2005-11-19 11:08