On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/30/10, Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowl...@kev009.com> wrote: >>> GCC's mission is not to >>> support every system in a computer history museum. Older versions of >>> GCC created at the time of those systems still will work on those >>> systems. >>> >> >> >> This is an unfortunate attitude many people have in free software >> these days, especially big business contributors with profit-aligned >> motives. > > As a not-for-profit gcc hacker: istm that it's the other way around. > Small groups of non-contributors with insignificant hobby projects, > trying to impose their ideals on foss projects. We see it all the time > on this list. > > But perhaps you could share your technical arguments instead? > Especially counter-arguments against David's, which you conveniently > ignore? > > Ciao! > Steven >
Steven, My argument is simply this, sorry if it wasn't clear in the last email, bottom line up front: - It can just as easily be removed in the future if it is broken for more than one release rather than evicting support. - It shouldn't add unwieldy maintenance overhead. The old stuff can be walled off, conditionally built, and otherwise removed from the main focus. - The code is already written and just needs a maintainer. - I have the hardware and desire to maintain it. Please reread the last paragraph in my previous email. The CPU architecture is still manufactured and in use. This is a strawman argument as I cannot say that these organizations are using GCC but it wouldn't be unimaginable. Regards, Kevin Bowling
