Re: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM]

David Weinehall (tao@acc.umu.se)
Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:10:10 +0200

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 11:40:33AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:45:21PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > That's probably a good enough test case. Explain to me how your support
> > > contracts are ever going to provide enough money to redo GCC or build
> > > something equally substantial.
> >
> > [incremental changes given as example]
>
> Incremental changes != redo. Redo is a ~$10M project.

You are of course aware of the fact that gcc is already a testimony to
the fact that such a compiler can be made from scratch, aren't you?

If it's been done once, it could be done again if there was need. But
there really isn't (once and again one might wish for the gcc crew to
spend a little concern on compile-times though, since things seem to get
slower every release...)

/David Weinehall

-- 
 /) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander      (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Full colour fire           (/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/