Diego Novillo wrote: > > The document in which Mark has announced the LTO briefly mentions > > that CIL was not retained for dumping the IR, without giving an > > explicit reason, so I think that we need a clear position from the > > FSF whether such a backend is accepted to be part of GCC. > > > Yes, that's true. If anyone is interested in contributing a CIL > backend, the FSF would have to approve it. That's not a decision we can > make in this list.
Could one of the SC people bring this question one level up? Thanks, Sebastian
