4 ms·

I've seen the argument made that somehow RMS and the gcc developers are against making gcc more modular. Where is everyone getting that idea, because that's no

I've seen the argument made that somehow RMS and the gcc developers are against making gcc more modular. Where is everyone getting that idea, because that's not what I'm reading. Indeed, this quote from David Edelsohn in response to ESR seems to indicate they are interested in making the gcc more modular: >GCC is working toward re-factoring its code base toward a more compositional approach for "toolification". One can look at presentations from the recent GNU Cauldron 2013 for discussion of the topic. So what am I missing? [1] -- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00212.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00212.html

cwzwarich 13y ago
"Anything that makes it easier to use GCC back ends without GCC front ends--or simply brings GCC a big step closer to a form that would make such usage easy--would endanger our leverage for causing new front ends to be free. Because of this, the GNU Project will in all probability not install such changes, should they be available. This statement reflects a firm conclusion based on a decade of thought." http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-01/msg00572.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-01/msg00572.html
- coryrc 13y ago
  That's 14 years old. The GP's message is from this year.