On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:51 PM, David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowl...@kev009.com> > wrote: > >> This is an unfortunate attitude many people have in free software >> these days, especially big business contributors with profit-aligned >> motives. Linus weighs in on a similar dissent here: >> http://lwn.net/Articles/339455/. > > This is just rude and self-serving and an inappropriate personal > attack. If I don't do what you want, I must be some evil slave of > corporate capitalism? And argument by authority referencing Linus's > opinion is fallacious reasoning.
Linus's opinion is very relevant, he maintains a huge chunk of code and has showed unparalleled judgement on fostering community, balancing industrial needs. and keeping things technically sane. If supporting old archs is so difficult, maybe there are design improvements that are worth looking into since others face this as well (i386). My first message simply stated I could provide remote access since I thought the removal was likely due to inability to test. I then offered to dig in since it seemed the real reason was lack of interest. You responded with what looked like a nastygram and condescension, which I also took as a personal attack. If that wasn't the intent, sorry, and let us move on. But my visit here wasn't to troll the GCC ML, though so far I've done a fantastic job. > Despite your assertions, it is a significant maintenance overhead for > some of the improvements that we want to add to the rs6000 port. It > literally doubles the amount of changes to modify all of the POWER > architecture machine description patterns. Ok, I can buy that. What do you think of Andrew Pinski's suggestion? Is there similarity to PPC603 and PPC604 code as well? Also, rather than calling it RIOS1, mentioning PowerPC 601 would be better suited for gauging users and relevance.
