Re: New maintainer

[David Kastrup]

Karl Fogel <address@hidden> writes:

> "John Wiegley" <address@hidden> writes:
>>I interpret him as meaning that the support should not favor non-GCC compilers
>>in any way, not that GCC should determine the least upper bound on
>>functionality.
>
> Just to confirm what others have pointed out:
>
> Given the context and past discussions, I think you would better
> assume that Richard meant "If GCC doesn't *actually* support the
> feature, then Emacs shouldn't add support for that feature just
> because Clang does."  I think at the very least the criterion would be
> that an actual patch to GCC must exist, even if no release of GCC
> includes it yet.
>
> That's just a guess though.  It's an open question whether the
> requirement would be that the FSF version (i.e., what we would call
> the "official" version) of GCC must support the feature, or whether it
> would be sufficient for the feature to be supported in a publicly
> available patch to GCC.  I hope the latter, since that's exactly the
> point at which Emacs's corresponding support would no longer be merely
> "theoretical" with respect to GCC.

I should think that the requirement would be that the patch would be
acceptable into the FSF version.  Reasons for non-acceptance would be a
lack of copyright assignment, or a mismatch with FSF policies.

It's really not speculative how this pans out: just look up the recent
GCC/AST/Smartcompletion spat on the Emacs developer list.

-- 
David Kastrup