On 12/04/2010 07:47, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 12 April 2010 00:38, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@> wrote:
>> On 11/04/2010 22:42, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>
>>> [ ... ] lack of test results in some platforms does not mean
>>> that GCC developers are uninterested on supporting those platforms and
>>> much less that they are against supporting those platforms. The GCC
>>> community haven't forbidden anyone from contributing to support any
>>> platform in GCC.
>> I don't know who you're talking to, but it sure isn't to me or about
>> anything remotely like anything I said. Put your straw man away.
>
> I am just trying to negate what a casual reader might conclude from
> Jack's original comment about gnulinux mono-culture and your analysis.
> I understand that you (and perhaps even Jack) do not actually mean to
> say that but the above sentiment is out there, specially among
> bsd/darwin users, so let's try not to reinforce it.
I had never even heard such a suggestion, and wouldn't have known it was out
there if you hadn't raised it!
Could anyone really believe that without being a grade A tinfoil-hat wearing
crazy? More precisely, could anyone capable of the kind of rational thought
processes that they'd need to have in order to be able to make any kind of
contribution to the GCC project really believe that? I'm not convinced that
we need to worry much about what generic non-contributing internet kooks,
trolls and idiots think.
Nope, as far as I'm concerned, there's a preponderance of
gnu-linux-centricity just because that's where most of the people who can be
bothered to contribute are at, and if other platforms feel neglected, there's
absolutely nothing to stop them stepping up to the plate and getting involved.
Heh, I work on Windows, if any OS was getting excluded for political reasons
I surely ought to be the first to know!
As Richard points out elsethread, GCC is not very OS specific. There *is*
occasionally some tendency towards all-the-world's-an-ELF-ism, although even
that isn't any deliberate policy but just the result of people not being aware
of the attributes of other platforms or the semantic differences between their
otherwise-similar concepts. LTO is the first big example, but there are
numerous minor things that rely implicitly on such features as (e.g.) leaving
undefined references to be resolved at load-time. (Yes, it makes vague
linkage a right PITA not being able to do that, sigh. Don't think we'll ever
be able to avoid violating the ODR with typeinfos on Windows and having to
rely on full name-string comparisons always.)
cheers,
DaveK
