darwin may lose primary target status on FSF gcc

[Toby Peterson]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 13:08, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:10:14PM -0700, Toby Peterson wrote:
>>
>> I don't care... although your claim that it'd take "many years" is a
>> little silly.
>>
>> - Toby
>
> Ahem. Have you have participated in any of these projects? Look at the
> timeline for gfortran (which had the advantages of starting from the
> g95 source code base which as in turn derived from the g77 source code).
> From wikipedia http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/TheOtherGCCBasedFortranCompiler...
>
> In early 2000 Andrew Vaught started g95, a project to create a free software Fortran 95 compiler using the GCC backend. This was a collaborative project for two years, but in late 2002 Andrew decided to become sole developer of g95. The gfortran project was created in January 2003 as a fork from the GPL-licensed g95 source code at that time, in order to allow for cooperative development and integration with the GCC codebase.
>
> Since that time, Andrew has continued development of g95 independently, and the codebases of g95 and gfortran have significantly diverged. Thus, the gfortran team is unable to provide support or advice regarding g95.
>
> Considering that gcc 4.2 was the first really usable gfortran release,
> this means that the development time from its original origins to the
> first stable release (http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html) was seven years.
> Also keep in mind any fortran project in llvm can't start with sources
> imported from later than gcc 4.2.1 without changing the license to
> GPLv3. We would also be competing for the limited pool of developers
> interested in fortran development against an existing project. Lastly
> most hard core open source compiler development is actually done by
> programmers employed to do so by a company and not folks in their
> basements. Since Apple's management has no interest in fortran development,
> another major entity would have to switch from FSF gcc to llvm clang
> to provide the necessary resources for any new fortran compiler in
> llvm clang to be viable. We need to be realistic about what is possible
> at the moment.

You really don't need to reply to every email with a wall of text.

Anyway, you're right that a new fortran frontend would take "many
years" if there are only a couple of volunteer developers. However,
since llvm is under a good license it's much more likely for real
development to take place.

- Toby