Re: clang and FSF's strategy

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

"Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com> writes:

> Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>:
>> I'm sympathetic to our comments regarding GCC vs. clang.  But I'm not
>> sure I grasp your proposed solution.  GCC does support plugins, and
>> has supported them for a few releases now.
>
> Then I don't understand why David Kastrup's question was even
> controversial.

I must have missed the controversy.

> If I have failed to understand the background facts, I apologize and
> welcome being corrected.

I'll refrain from any comments about wiping the egcs off anybody's face.
My reply to your "call to arms" was actually rooted in as much (or
rather little) actual knowledge of the pertinent situation as your
request appears to have been.

But as you chose an enquiring mail of mine to justify your
confrontational approach, I felt that I should mitigate the damage
purportedly originating from me by addressing those points that I cannot
consider a justifiable conclusion from what I wrote.

-- 
David Kastrup