For some reason sourceware seems to think this message was sent as HTML instead of plaint text. Retry...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com> Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:15 PM Subject: Re: Re: Proposed gfortran development branch To: (hidden) On Mar 19, 2009 8:06pm, Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu> wrote: > This can be amended by replacing "so stability is paramount for them" > > with "so utopian philosophical pander is paramount for them" *grin* but +0 because in this case they actually respond to calls from the community, unlike in the egcs case. The problem now is that for some reason it is apparently important for someone to have a license ready with plugin support that doesn't even exist for GCC 4.4. I still haven't heard or seen an explanation why this is so important for GCC 4.4 (and in the mean time there is already a plugin API being prepared on a branch -- which license applies to that, then?). Regarding $SUBJECT: +1. gfortran for 4.4 is essentially frozen, and merging back front-end-only (oh, and library) changes for GCC 4.5 can't conflict so much with the projects on other branches, no? (In fact LTO and pretty-IPA should welcome Paul's whole-file patches...). Ciao! Steven
