On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Alec Teal <a.t...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote: > On 23/01/13 19:16, Uday Khedker wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday 24 January 2013 12:39 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Uday Khedker <u...@cse.iitb.ac.in> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I would like to take this training program to the next level but so long >>>> it remains my personal baby, my funding agency does not feel that I have >>>> accomplished much because they feel that if my program has any merit, >>>> the GCC community would adopt it :-( >>> >>> >>> I would say they have it backwards. The GCC community is the last one >>> who'd adopt such a training program. We already know the content! >>> >>> This kind of training is precisely targeted at newcomers. >> >> >> Yes, absolutely. And GCC community should consider it important to bring >> in newcomers particularly young students and experimenters from the >> academia. >> >> Why is it that most student projects these days are on LLVM and not on >> GCC? Had these students been doing projects on GCC, some of them may turn >> contributors in future. >> >> Uday. >> > I really have a theory here, I think (like me! I came here in the hope of > 'fixing' GCC from what I thought it was to what it is because I, suppose I > am loyal, I don't really like BSD, the lack of obligation to keep things > free, anyway that'll start a dispute probably so don't worry) it's all the > bad press, my impression was GCC is really old and archaic, not very good > for developing new optimisations, had a crap IR and there was this newcomer > that only made these problems known because it fixes them. > > I know now that most of them were wrong BTW!
Ah, well - the old issue that LLVM has just become a very good marketing machinery (and we've stayed at being a compiler - heh). Richard. > Alec >
