Adriaan van Os writes: > Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > Adriaan van Os <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The > >> answer is that simply the resources fail to maintain gpc on a daily > >> basis on gcc mainline. > > > > It seems to me that integrating gpc would _reduce_ the burden on the > > gpc team, because you would get more regular testing > > the problem is not regular testing. > > > and people are > > responsible for fixing all front ends when they do backend changes. > > I don't believe that, they would just say, "oh, it is broken" or "oh, > it is not a primary language" or whatever excuse. > > > The gpc folks would only have to worry about the front end. > > > >> Also, flexibility in choosing the back-end > >> version sometimes has its advantages, dependent on the platform, given > >> the fact that reported gcc bugs are not always fixed. > > > > So you could help fix them, instead of forcing people to stick to > > older backends ;-) > > We are not forcing anybody, we offer full choice. Not fixing > backend-end bugs is what is actually forcing people. And even patches > that do fix bugs are often not accepted.
As another maintainer of a "minority" language, I have to say that the situation is not as bad as you suggest. Although occasional conflicts do occur, they generally get fixed, and other maintainers help us too. It's better to be inside than out. Andrew.
