[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: clang and FSF's strategy
From: |
Eric S. Raymond |
Subject: |
Re: clang and FSF's strategy |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Jan 2014 23:02:12 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
Ian Lance Taylor <address@hidden>:
> I'm sympathetic to our comments regarding GCC vs. clang. But I'm not
> sure I grasp your proposed solution. GCC does support plugins, and
> has supported them for a few releases now.
Then I don't understand why David Kastrup's question was even controversial.
If I have failed to understand the background facts, I apologize and welcome
being corrected.
I hope you (and others) understand that I welcome chances to help the FSF's
projects when I believe doing so serves the hacker community as a whole. The
fact that I am currently working full-time on cleaning up the Emacs repoaitory
for full git conversion is only one instance of this.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
- clang and FSF's strategy, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang and FSF's strategy, David Kastrup, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang and FSF's strategy, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang and FSF's strategy, Alexandre Oliva, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang and FSF's strategy, Ian Lance Taylor, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang and FSF's strategy,
Eric S. Raymond <=
- Re: clang and FSF's strategy, Jordi GutiƩrrez Hermoso, 2014/01/22