Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:07:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
To: Pavel =?iso-8859-2?q?Jan=EDk?= <Pavel@Janik.cz>
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance
In-Reply-To: <m3k7gfjb6f.fsf@Janik.cz>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302051157580.2999-100000@home.transmeta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1385
Lines: 34


On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Pavel [iso-8859-2] Jan?k wrote:
> 
> Hi Linus,
> 
>    > lcc isn't really something I want to use, since the license is so
>    > strange, and thus can't be improved upon if there are issues with it.
> 
> what is the difference between compiler and source management system
> regarding licenses and improvements?

You snipped the part where I said that the intel compiler is likely to be 
more interesting to a number of people, since it's at a higher level. So 
no, I'm not religious about licenses.

But the real issue is "does it do what we want it to do?" and "do we have
a choice?". There are no open-source SCM's that work for me. But there
_is_ an open-source compiler that does work for me. At which point the
license matters - simply because there is choice in the matter.

Gcc mostly works. But it's slower then I'd like. And it prioritizes things
I don't care about. And competition is always good. So I would definitely 
love to see some alternatives.

And if you have issues with BK, maybe you can try to encourage the SCM
people to see why I consider BK to not even have alternatives right now. 

		Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/