Uday Khedker <u...@cse.iitb.ac.in> wrote: > > > >On Tuesday 22 January 2013 10:27 PM, Richard Kenner wrote: >>> Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to >>> understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals >>> documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in people that >>> could disappear with one bus factor. >> >> That is definitely a worthwhile goal, and one that's had mixed >success >> in the past, but: >> >> - compilers are extremely complex programs and there's a limit to how >> much even the best-written internals documentation can explain >> - even fewer people are interested and competant to write such >documentation >> as there are to do the necessary development work >> > > >This is because no matter what one has done, unless one has contributed > >code, one is not considered a contributor to GCC. > >I had said in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-11/msg00270.html > >> >> So while we continue to improve the technology, we have to also give >due importance to making it easier for newer people to become >contributors to the technology. >> >> GCC is not just about a code that works. It is also about building >succinct explanations of what that code is and why it has been designed >the way it is. > >The way code maintainers are appointed, I think we need to identify and > >appoint people who would be willing to take the responsibility so that >the developers could rally around such activities to make them more >meaningful. We need to build a group whose primary responsibility is >not >development but who understand the nuances of the development and can >engage with academia and attract people who can contribute to GCC. >And such a group cannot be identified using the criteria of code >submitted. > >For every piece of code, there are dozens of people who take keen >interest in it, express opinion on it, review it critically and >contribute to improving it because eventually it could go in the >compiler. > >Unless there is an express statement from the steering committee that >tutorials and training material should be accorded a similar status, >they would remain neglected and personal projects with limited reach. >Of course even in the presence of an official mandate, there is no >guarantee that things will change but we would not know until we have >tried :-)
There is no need to involve the steering committee in anything. If you believe that building such a group (of volunteers) is good for gcc consider yourself the volunteer to build it! Richard. > >Uday. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Dr. Uday Khedker >Professor >Department of Computer Science & Engg. >IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India. >Email : u...@cse.iitb.ac.in >Homepage: http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~uday >Phone : >Office - 91 (22) 2572 2545 x 7717, 91 (22) 2576 7717 (Direct) >Res. - 91 (22) 2572 2545 x 8717, 91 (22) 2576 8717 (Direct)
