On 11 April 2010 17:17, Jack Howarth wrote: > > I would also add that some of this seems like deja vu from the > egcs days. Granted it is extremely unlikely, but who is to say that > at some future date, if the license conflicts subside, that FSF gcc > might decide that llvm wasn't so bad for the middle/back-ends. Wouldn't > having the front-end running entirely via the plugin be a huge help > in that case.
egcs code was always license-compatible with GCC and was always assigned to the FSF The difference is quite significant.
