[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PATCH RFA: Add support for Go programming language

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: Add support for Go programming language
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:42:54 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.1.6-1.fc14 Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.6

On 11/03/2010 11:38 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> That said, I'm not wedded to GCCGO, and if y'all think it would be
>>> better to use GOC or GOCC, I'm fine with making the change.  It's true
>>> that it would be possible to write a driver program for 6g/8g which make
>>> them act more like gccgo, though the reverse would be harder.
>> Eric, do you have any input on this open question?  Have you had a
>> chance to look at the patch?

Sorry, I've been swamped by some other tasks lately, and have not looked
at this patch yet.  I also need to make good on my promise to split off
a stable branch and 2.68.1 release, while applying feature patches like
Go support onto master.

>>  It otherwise seems low-danger to me, but
>> I wouldn't want to move forward on the Libtool sister patch without this
>> one cleared.
> I'm at the point with my gcc patches where I kind of need an answer to
> this question.  The question is: what name should we use in shell and
> make to refer to the Go compiler?  I've been using GCCGO.  Should we
> instead use GOC or GOCC or something else?  How can we decide this?

Personally, I'd like GOC mnemonic of Go-compiler (to match FC for
Fortran-compiler, or CC for C compiler).

Eric Blake   address@hidden    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]