Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:07:47 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance |
| |
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Pavel [iso-8859-2] Janík 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/
|  |