Re: PATCH RFA: Add support for Go programming language

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 08:15:29AM CET:
> * Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:42:54PM CET:
> > On 11/03/2010 11:38 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > >>  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).
> 
> GOC is used now in the Libtool patch for Go support (which has a
> replacement macro for AC_PROG_GO if that is not defined).

This patch has been on hold for a while now, but I don't see a good
reason for that.  Eric, if you're still thinking of a stable release,
but don't have time, then please outline your plans for that; maybe
someone else has time to do that grunt work then.  In any case it
shouldn't need to hold up this patch, as it has only a small chance
of actually introducing regressions for working code.

So, here's a rebase, including s/GCCGO/GOC/g as discussed before,
adjusting copyright years, and adding a NEWS entry.  I've tested
it without gccgo in sight, and a distcheck, and added a missing
$(srcdir)/acgo.at entry in tests/Makefile.am.

Any reasons against pushing this once a test with gccgo installed
passes as well?

Thanks,
Ralf

0001-Add-support-for-the-Go-programming-language.patch
Description: Text document