From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 1+IUN0NGPGPsdgUAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 10:42:11 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id D07CB1E112; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:42:11 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=Gu9um6tF; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4D791E0CB for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:42:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8E73857B8A for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 14:42:09 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DE8E73857B8A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1664894529; bh=NnEJvZKazT7Vpa7YGXW6kHkAKhbxuQAZ1+sXolCV52U=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=Gu9um6tFkoMJOaLm3RdsFbKPp8psisXHjkvLqOefrvQNVNZ1uSUQDaJJKdEbceDck sHxtwpe4dwKFcDsjKQAFTPr6AK6Yld+AP7siKRlQP76TuwgOZKS62IgZeFVuP4ec5p rRgvz7fXqF5I9Ug2P7BZe88n4MMyGVm1u2CjvZ2A= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBE9C3858C56 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 14:41:23 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org DBE9C3858C56 Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-205-LwPmJQbhM-qbKGCwTm7KDA-1; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 10:41:22 -0400 X-MC-Unique: LwPmJQbhM-qbKGCwTm7KDA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6F712999B2D; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 14:41:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.2.17.198]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FD9D140EBF3; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 14:41:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fche by redhat.com with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1ofj6g-0004Vp-Fc; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 10:41:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:41:14 -0400 To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Subject: Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project Message-ID: <20221004144114.GB15858@redhat.com> References: <6f6d141b-b776-8707-2c91-dc38d20aa9e1@gotplt.org> <9ec804c9-1bbe-42ac-07a4-69df5c83b559@gotplt.org> <20221004141900.GA15858@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.0 (2019-05-25) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.7 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: "Frank Ch. Eigler via Gdb" Reply-To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Overseers mailing list , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, Mark Wielaard , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , binutils@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" Hi - > > > I don't see a risk to freedom. The GNU toolchain is quite underfunded > > > compared to llvm/clang and IMO it's a major risk to maintain status quo on > > > that front. The GTI opens new avenues for funding aspects of the GNU > > > toolchain without affecting its core governance. > > > > What aspects of the gnu toolchain are open to being funded via the > > LF/GTI proposal, -other than- the vast majority of the funds being > > redirected to its own managed services infrastructure? > > This current proposal is limited to infrastructure, which has ever-growing > needs. I'm afraid I don't understand then what the point of comparing to LLVM with respect to competitiveness or freedom was. AIUI, infrastructure is an enabler, not really a competitive differentiator. > Do you think the current proposal is not an upgrade to what we > currently have? I don't know. I am not under the impression that infrastructure is holding back development on any of these projects. Further, I suspect that if the communities were given a choice to direct the sponsors' generous donations toward new development type work, they may well prefer that. Is that possibility on offer? - FChE