This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See crosstool-NG for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 4/29/2013 2:49 PM, Martin Guy wrote:
On 29 April 2013 20:29, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com> wrote:Why doesn't Atmel submit their patches upstream?They would never be accepted as long as they make modifications to cpu-agnostic portions of GCC.
Yep. But it speaks poorly of the port if they did that and didn't try to find a way to address it. :)
As an embedded FOSS community, we need to be encouraging vendors.. prodding them.. to submit their tools upstream.Absolutely. After all, chip vendors make their money by selling silicon, not compilers.
Agreed.
But it's not only a technical issue. The GCC maintainers also need to believe that the port will continue to be maintained, tested, the code updated to new versions of GCC, that bugs found will be fixed and so on, i.e. a commitment from the vendor to help with to the ongoing work of software maintenance.
I understand completely. I am the GCC RTEMS maintainer. OTOH I wonder why a chip vendor would be opposed to this. Wouldn't they want an improving rather than dead end compiler?[1] And yes sometimes they pay someone to do the port and not to update it. So they don't have in-house expertise and there is no long plan to support it except maybe to pay the consultant again per bug. As a community, we just aren't doing a good job of selling the idea that merging and maintaining benefits both sides. It has to be cheaper to keep it up to date and tested versus jumping 4 or 5 major gcc versions. But it is cheaper to do the port, throw it to users and walk away. Sorry for the rant. I have managed to prod behind the scenes and get a couple of ports merged into the FSF. One was easy. One has been taken over two years and is just now getting merged. I just get frustrated when I see other targets out in the cold. [1] Both the msp430 and avr32 are based on gcc versions which are in the 4.3/4.4 version range. Those are dead. 4.6 was just closed.
M
-- Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805 Support Available (256) 722-9985 -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |