On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Renato Golin <renato.go...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> I'll be at the GNU Cauldron this year, feel free to come and discuss >> this and other ideas. I hope to participate more in the GCC side of >> things, and I wish some of you guys would do the same on our side. And >> hopefully, in a few years, we'll all be on the same side. > > I think this would be worth a BoF, at the very least. Would you be > willing to propose one? I just need an abstract to get it in the > system. We still have some room left for presentations.
I still don't see any need for this extra BoF really. They should be handled at the sources of the extensions rather than the destination of the extensions. In fact I see this as weaking the computition between the two compilers. Things like the new attributes being added for the kernel to use (in fact they are already implemented in sparse is a thing which should be mentioned here) should have been talked about the source. HPA filed the bugs to GCC as he is an user of GCC but not an user of LLVM, if someone in the kernel community wanted LLVM support they would have filed the bugs there. And then again the original message here is that GCC is not controlling binutils (ld) and " ld should not accept this deprecated instruction, but we can't change that" but you should have talked with the binutils community rather than the GCC one since they are two separate projects (though most folks work on both). Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > I think the friendly competition we have going between the two > compilers has done nothing but improve both toolchains. I agree that > we should keep it at this level. Any kind of abrasive interaction > between the two communities is a waste of everyone's time. > > Both compilers have a lot to learn from each other. > > > Diego.
