X-pop3-spooler:	POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 3 961213 -bs-
Delivered-To:	pcg AT goof DOT com
To:	Patrik Hagglund <patha AT ida DOT liu DOT se>
Cc:	beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl
Subject:	Re: PCG pgcc in egcs?
References:	<199804142041 DOT WAA20964 AT portofix DOT ida DOT liu DOT se>
From:	Hannu Koivisto <azure AT iki DOT fi>
Date:	15 Apr 1998 15:15:50 +0300
In-Reply-To:	Patrik Hagglund's message of Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:41:08 +0200
Message-ID:	<87sonfi8ll.fsf@quasar.vvf.fi>
X-Mailer:	Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2
Sender:	Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Status:	RO
Lines:	23

Patrik Hagglund <patha AT ida DOT liu DOT se> writes:

| I have read the FAQ, but still have one fundamental question: Why is
| pgcc not included in egcs? Or what is the problem of submitting the
| patch (or parts of the patch) for inclusion egcs? Or is this alredy
| happening?

I queried the same thing some time ago on the
egcs-mailinglist. If you browse the archives, you should find
the discussion there. Shortly: benefits that pgcc provides now
will be built to egcs from a bit different standpoint and thus
pgcc patches are not suitable concerning egcs' goals. egcs
should eventually close the gap between egcs and pgcc just "by
itself".

Disclaimer: this was, of course, my interpretation of the
situation -- do correct me if I'm severely wrong.

HTH,
-- 
Hannu Koivisto | What you see is all you get.
NOYB           |                            - Brian Kernighan
-------------------------------------------------------------

- Raw text -