------- Comment #8 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-05-23 17:57 ------- Thanks Manuel.
I "imagined" that since I read it at http://gcc.gnu.org/readings.html that the GEM would (or _might_) be incorporated in future. My "purpose" in posting: 1): The patches were posted MORE with the thought that the "general public" would apply the patches, do some tests, submit any fixes - and AFTER all that, then (and only then) _might_ the maintainers _consider_ adding GEM. 2): To avoid the possiblility that people who write code (maintainers) would avoid writing code that shut GEM out (_if_ it _might_ be coming in the future). One example of this happening is that I tried to add boehm-gc 7 to GCC but the _Java_ code was written in such a way that you can't add gc-7 without some re-writing (if you compile GCC _WITHOUT_ Java it compiles fine). The Java maintainers went "under" the ABI and snooped in GC's ".h" files and used features that have been discontinued and did not follow "exactly what is on http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html ". 3): I thought it was GPL. 4): It was _never_ my thought that one of the maintainers were simply going to apply the patches to the SVN and unleash it on everyone. I agree with Andrew that were not putting it in SVN today - if that is what you thought I meant. I thought it was something that _might_ be coming and so made the patches for people to play with it. I'll fiddle with something else. Maybe have another look at GC7. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32051
