On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:48 AM, DJ Delorie <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Seima Rao <seima...@gmail.com> writes: >> Has gcc become proprietory/commercial ? > > By definition: no, yes. It's been this way since the beginning, and > hasn't changed in decades. > >> Or has it become illegal to publish specification models >> of gcc internals ? Does this make the product sell less ? > > This sounds like you're trying to start an argument, instead of asking a > simple question. It is certainly not illegal to publish our > specifications, and we certainly *do* publish many of our specifications > (have you read the internals manual? You don't say whether or not you > did, but that would be a key bit of information to have disclosed). > Whether the product "sells" or not is rarely a driving factor for our > project. Most of us work on it because we need it to work better for > our own purposes. > > If you have specific questions about our documentation or development > process, please ask them. Please do not ask vague, leading, and > emotionally loaded questions. RTL and Gimple are documented. Are they > documemented well? That depends on your needs. Are they documented as > well as they could be? Probably not, but good enough for us so far. > > And as always, if you want to improve the situation, by all means feel > free to volunteer to do so ;-)
Got your point that GCC is more inclined as a reference then a specification driven technology. Sincerely, Seima Rao.
