D compiler as part of GCC

[Jesse Phillips]

Jerry Quinn wrote:

> I think you're slightly incorrect, Brad.  DigitalMars still owns the copyright to the original source (call it copy A).  A fork (called copy B) is donated to the FSF.   DigitalMars still gets to make changes to copy A and license them as it sees fit.  Copy B is part of the GCC codebase and would evolve separately.
>
> Moving changes between them would require the same kind of donation process as the original transfer.  Folks making changes to the DMD FE would have to contribute those changes to FSF as well to get them into copy B and vice versa.

As best I could tell there were two options, the one Brad was referring
to[1], and the one you asked about.


> In the end, the language spec should be the thing that unifies the D community rather than the adhoc definition provided by a particular front end implementation.  It's just a matter of how to get there.

I think Brad was refering to the "donation" process that is required for
propogating changes from DM to GCC and visa versa. Since GCC will be
using the same front end, it would make since that patches should be
applied to both reducing duplicate effort in fixing bugs.

I think that at this time, contributers to the front end would not have
a problem with making these "donations." However in the feature, you
might see more people contributing to GCC and not want to donate it for
GPL/Artistic... And when that happens I don't think Walter would care
that GCC is getting more attention.


1. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00432.html