Message-ID:	<39478708.62C083A2@softhome.net>
Date:	Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:22:16 +0300
From:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	lt,en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
CC:	Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>,
	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Subject:	Re: Patch: sentinels for typedefs in headers
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000614134852 DOT 29611Q-100000 AT is>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> However, I also think that Andris, Mark, and Laurynas have such an
> official standing as well.  So it strikes me that the real reason we
> didn't get any response to Laurynas's question the other day is that
> the maintainers don't want to grant us any response...

Well, we got the response (the same I've forwarded there), but it
sounded more like a religious dogma.

I has been a lurker on gcc mailing list for 1.5 year now and
I can barely say that GCC maintainers don't want to grant us
any response. This would mean that there wasn't any flame
wars there about -fstrict-aliasing, invalid asm constructs...
Besides, even plain technical questions there may get no response.
This could speak about their development model and developer 
communication effectiveness.

> If learning by example is any good, consider this.  In a discussion about
> the strict aliasing, which took place on the GCC list several months ago,
> it took Richard Stallman himself a long series of messages to get the
> GCC maintainers to even _partially_ agree that strict aliasing by default
> just _might_ be a bad idea.  Those who know how eloquently Richard writes
> to make his points, how profound is his authority among GNU maintainers,
> and how important must an issue be for him to enter a long discussion,
> can draw his/her own conclusions...

I agree.

Laurynas

- Raw text -