Agreed, although things I immediately think of are:

1. Is "anything but gcc" actually supported by the project? Do they have a goal of supporting other compilers or possibly an explicit decision not to support other compilers?

2. If they do support other compilers, how did the "d" suffix make it in the first place? That's something I would expect the dev or CI to catch pretty quickly.

3. Does gcc behave any differently with the "d" suffix not there? (I would think a core dev would know that off the top of their head, so it's possible they looked at it and decided it wasn't worth it. One would hope they'd comment on the PR though if they did that). If it does, this could introduce a really hard-to-track-down bug.

I'm not defending Oracle here (in fact I hate Oracle and think they are a scourge on humanity) but trying to approach this with an objective look.

▲

dundarious 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Given they have one to fix usage of llvm-config, I assume clang is also supported or being worked on.

▲

stuaxo an hour ago | parent [-]

That sort of patch is clearly fixing something that blocked him, and probably blocked many others who didn't get as far as trying to fix it.

A project should take on useful small patches, thats how you onboard contributors.

	▲	gf000 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That again assumes a project is looking to onboard contributors. I absolutely get that it was an unfortunate interaction from the email writer's perspective, and it's really unfortunate. But there are a lot of concerns/bureaucracy, etc in case of large projects like this. It may just never got to the person responsible, because it is a cross-cutting concern (so no clear way to assign it to someone) with a low priority.