In message <Marcel-1.09-0520110635-0b0f3nA@succexpr.demon.co.uk>
          "Neil A. Carson" <neil@causality.com> wrote:

> On Tue 20 May, Peter Burwood wrote:
> > 
> > This is important to understand because 2.8 has been due out in a month
> > or so for over a year (though perhaps not always `out in a month' during
> > the last year). If everyone had known this, just howmany `when is it
> > going to be released' messages do you think would be floating around the
> > place ?
> 
> We don't know when gcc 2.8 is coming out. If one of my colleagues said this
> then they were talking rubbish, but I very much doubt that one of
> them did.

Okay, it appears I also put 2 and 2 together and got 5 by pointing the
finger at the RiscBSD chaps. I just wanted to try and ensure that such a
rumour was squashed (as much as it can be) and to try and prevent it
from happening again. Apologies to those concerned.

> > > [optimisations for a commercial customer]
> > >
> > > I think a mention of pmap was made, and is being paid for by a company,
> > > so again, it's if they let it be released.
> > 
> > [Me jumping to the incorrect conclusion that needed NetBSD kernel
> > development will not be seen outside commercial envirnments]
> 
> You're getting the wrong end of the stick here, Pete. These things were
> only being *shown* and not *given away* because in a lot of cases they hve
> not finished development yet. You *will* see a release of NetBSD, with
> shared libraries (these do not necessarily hinge upon gcc 2.8), with
> soft float support, with new pmap() code, within the next couple of months.
> The people we are working with on these developments in many cases *insist*
> that the changes are released into the free tree; it's just a question of when.

I probably did Neil. I was just publically expressing some of my fears
that others may also have had, with the hope that such a reply would be
forthcoming. Thankyou Neil.

> Believe me, the customers certainly really do understand the free
> philisophy, and love it.

Good ;-)

> > became available. The current situation is making me consider moving
> > to Linux/ARM. I really would have liked to attend Wakefield to
> > discuss this matter with Mark and Neil et al, but the F.A. Cup was
> > more important to me and the distance and travel arrangements meant
> > it was too far.
> 
> You can of course move to ARMLinux if you want; it's hopefuly likely that
> we and them will be a bit more cooperative in future on device drivers et
> al. I've a meeting with a guy sooon to chat about this.

Well, I don't really want to move to ARMLinux, especially considering
the amount of time I've invested in RiscBSD.

> > Obviously, I would also like to say that I am grateful for the effort
> > put in by everyone associated with NetBSD and I would like it to
> > continue that way. However, I really would like clarification on the
> > issues I have raised above.
> 
> Give me a call at home sometime (before midnight :) ), if you're still left
> in doubt.

I didn't get home from work until midnight, so perhaps later in the
week. Thanks for the offer Neil.

> > > Shared libs will appear with the gcc 2.8
> 
> Nope :-) The ones we have atm work from gcc 2.7.2.

Excellent. Now, are the patches going to be publically available so I
can rebuild GNAT and pthreads with them ;-) Please don't take this as
`hassling', I can wait without requiring a date estimate.

That reminds me, I've got some fixes for pthreads should anyone using
them want them. Some of which are fixes for mistakes I made in the ARM
version and some are generic fixes.

> > > Digital want the source code to be available mainly so that developers
> > > have access to one central place for source code for the NC :)
> 
> Digital want the source code to be free to all, for all the benefits that
> may bring.

Excellent.

> > > Other things will come along once the legal bits of paper are signed.
> > 
> > This concerns me slightly, as outlined above. Perhaps Mark or Neil can
> > allay my fears/concerns ?
> 
> Nope; just when all agree to release the stuff (ie. when its finished,
> tested, and working properly). The free releasing is a foregone conclusion
> in most cases.

Again, thankyou Neil for putting most of my concerns to rest.

regards,
Pete