On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Jack Howarth <howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 08:47:54AM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >> On 12 April 2010 00:38, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > On 11/04/2010 22:42, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >> > >> >> [ ... ] lack of test results in some platforms does not mean >> >> that GCC developers are uninterested on supporting those platforms and >> >> much less that they are against supporting those platforms. The GCC >> >> community haven't forbidden anyone from contributing to support any >> >> platform in GCC. >> > >> > I don't know who you're talking to, but it sure isn't to me or about >> > anything remotely like anything I said. Put your straw man away. >> >> I am just trying to negate what a casual reader might conclude from >> Jack's original comment about gnulinux mono-culture and your analysis. >> I understand that you (and perhaps even Jack) do not actually mean to >> say that but the above sentiment is out there, specially among >> bsd/darwin users, so let's try not to reinforce it. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Manuel. > > Manuel, > What I meant to say was that the reality of the situation is > that 90%+ of the code (by line) is probably created by paid > employees and the way things have shaken out has placed the bulk > of those on linux. So FSF gcc will have to go out of its way to > try to limit the monoculture tendencies that this will naturally > cause. The llvm project has this issue probably less for linux > than for other surviving platforms (like Solaris, etc).
Err, well. I do not see how most of the code is OS specific anyway - there is _very_ little code in GCC that is OS specific. Richard. > Jack > >
