Roberto COSTA wrote: > Diego Novillo wrote: >> Sebastian Pop wrote on 06/12/06 12:40: >> >> >>> This page has no discussion about a CIL backend. >>> >> Note that I never said 'CIL'. I specifically said 'bytecode >> representation'. The work being done for LTO will have some points in >> common with an effort to build a CIL backend. >> >> >>> 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. > > It looks like you don't assume such an approval as granted... may I ask > you why?
Because they have a history of not granting such things, believing that it serves to hinder, not further, the goal of free software. (This is not necessarily my viewpoint, i'm just answering your question). Really, you'd need to take this up with the SC, and they'll take it up with the FSF. --Dan
