3 ms·

The fight that led to EGCS had nothing to do with licensing. It had to do with a broken development process that the release manager wasn't willing to change.

by not2b 5y ago

The fight that led to EGCS had nothing to do with licensing. It had to do with a broken development process that the release manager wasn't willing to change. About two years of backlogged bugfixes for C++ were in some state of acceptance, but things were such a mess that releases weren't really possible: people got email saying that the bug would be fixed in the next major release of g++ but it never happened. EGCS kept the same licensing policies and also kept copyright assignment in place. Some developers wanted a clean break with the FSF, but most just wanted to get GCC fixed. It was a delicate dance to keep RMS from getting pissed off and trying to shut it down; one selling point that kept him calmer was that doing it the EGCS way kept Cygnus from just owning everything and taking over.

lanstin 5y ago
2.7.2 the current for a while then you could manually update to some iffy 2.9.5 release? I never did much c++ in the 90s. 2.7.x was generally fine for c on hpux/Solaris/digital/Linux and maybe os/x?
sitkack 5y ago
I made no statements about licensing. It was all about updates and developer velocity. Lots of folks wanted to get patches into GCC and the GCC devs at the time were camping on the submission queue. The EGCS fork was a way around that, but a balkanized compiler is kinda like a poison pill, as soon as someone uses a feature in one and not the other, it bifurcates a codebase. Think of what would have happened if some distros took alternate tooling paths? What about popular tools? We have to have both toolchains on our systems. It is clear from how things turned out that EGCS wasn't about ownership or splitting the ecosystem. If one were to do this now, you would constantly rebase against upstream while you sort out the politics. Clang/LLVM was both about implementation architecture and licensing, but had GCC been more modular, it might not have existed as well.

by not2b 5y ago

lanstin 5y ago

2.7.2 the current for a while then you could manually update to some iffy 2.9.5 release? I never did much c++ in the 90s. 2.7.x was generally fine for c on hpux/Solaris/digital/Linux and maybe os/x?

sitkack 5y ago

I made no statements about licensing. It was all about updates and developer velocity. Lots of folks wanted to get patches into GCC and the GCC devs at the time were camping on the submission queue. The EGCS fork was a way around that, but a balkanized compiler is kinda like a poison pill, as soon as someone uses a feature in one and not the other, it bifurcates a codebase. Think of what would have happened if some distros took alternate tooling paths? What about popular tools? We have to have both toolchains on our systems. It is clear from how things turned out that EGCS wasn't about ownership or splitting the ecosystem. If one were to do this now, you would constantly rebase against upstream while you sort out the politics. Clang/LLVM was both about implementation architecture and licensing, but had GCC been more modular, it might not have existed as well.