Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eric S. Raymond Calls Out The FSF/GCC On Clang

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Eric S. Raymond Calls Out The FSF/GCC On Clang

    Phoronix: Eric S. Raymond Calls Out The FSF/GCC On Clang

    Eric S. Raymond has made some very interesting -- and what surely will be considered very controversial remarks -- about the Free Software Foundation's views on the GCC compiler and its lack of acceptance towards (potentially non-free) compiler plug-ins in a time of LLVM's Clang existence and ongoing acceptance...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU3ODU

  • #2
    ESR and Plugins

    ESR is either unaware of the facts or being disingenous for rhetorical purposes. Fact of that matter is that GCC has supported plugins for a long time and carved licensing exceptions for such plugins to make it palaptable for other purposes. Example,

    https://fedorahosted.org/gcc-python-plugin/

    There are interface issues and other technical problems which need to be fixed and GCC developers are well aware of that. ESR's post doesn't seem to serve any real purpose other than to flame and misdirect the conversation.

    Comment


    • #3
      Eric S Raymond is well known to be a traitor of Freedom in software.

      His advocacy on the so called "unix philosophy" has hold Linux in certain areas. RMS once said he is more harm then good to the FOSS community.

      Comment


      • #4
        David Kastrup puts it best in his reply...

        You are crossposting to two public project lists of the GNU project with
        inflammatory language and mischaracterizations. You have been involved
        with the GNU project long enough to be well aware that this kind of
        crowbar approach does not lead to much more than headlines about Free
        Software infighting.
        Quoted from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00178.html

        Comment


        • #5
          What's next, I wonder, a proposal to relicense GCC under a BSD licence?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by M1kkko
            What's next, I wonder, a proposal to relicense GCC under a BSD licence?
            No, modify the law and take LLVM devs to the Free Software court and force them to re-license LLVM under GPLv3.

            It'll teach Apple, B$D and all those Anti-GPL trolls a lesson.
            Last edited by endman; 01-21-2014, 10:21 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              I see this as a slow attempt to turn things proprietary and earn money by lock-in.

              Comment


              • #8
                Meh

                I don't think it matters. Clang isn't going to go away if GCC starts accepting non-free plugins, and i don't think it would even slightly slow down anything. That's not why people use clang.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  I don't think it matters. Clang isn't going to go away if GCC starts accepting non-free plugins, and i don't think it would even slightly slow down anything. That's not why people use clang.
                  This^. Clang uses a completely different design philosophy and I bet it is interesting to the devs to see where it will take them.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                    I don't think it matters. Clang isn't going to go away if GCC starts accepting non-free plugins, and i don't think it would even slightly slow down anything. That's not why people use clang.
                    Yes, it's about choice. What matters is the need, everyone will choose what best fit their need if there is a choose.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rudregues View Post
                      I see this as a slow attempt to turn things proprietary and earn money by lock-in.
                      More like a lazy attempt at getting some free publicity. Mission accomplished, BTW. Thank you, Phoronix. /golfclap

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        ESR's comment is uninformed, and he has apologized for this.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I would rather listen to what RMS has to say about the subject.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            GCC has already lost on technical merits and mind share where it counts: investment.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Are politics news? Even if Eric S. Raymond writes it doesn't make always a problem of Clang or GCC. Given this still should be read in context.
                              Ian Taylor, an important GCC developer writes:
                              http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00181.html

                              I'm sympathetic to our comments regarding GCC vs. clang. But I'm not
                              sure I grasp your proposed solution. GCC does support plugins, and
                              has supported them for a few releases now.

                              GCC plugins have what turns out to be a significant defect: the plugin
                              interface simply exposes GCC internals, and as such is not stable
                              across releases. I pushed for plugins in GCC, and I thought this
                              unstable interface would be OK, but I was wrong. For general plugins
                              to be useful, we need a more stable interface.

                              But that is a technical issue, not a licensing issue. You are talking
                              about licensing issues. Do you think the licensing requirements on
                              plugins are too onerous?

                              Because of the non-standard interface, the most effective way for
                              people to write plugins for GCC today is to use something like MELT
                              (http://gcc-melt.org) or the GCC Python plugin
                              (https://fedorahosted.org/gcc-python-plugin/). These provide a
                              somewhat more standard interface across releases.

                              Ideally we would develop a standard interface for C as well. There
                              have been some efforts along those lines but as far as I know none of
                              them have been committed to the tree.

                              Ian
                              And even Eric responded as:
                              http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00182.html

                              Then I don't understand why David Kastrup's question was even controversial.

                              If I have failed to understand the background facts, I apologize and welcome
                              being corrected.


                              I hope you (and others) understand that I welcome chances to help the FSF's
                              projects when I believe doing so serves the hacker community as a whole
                              . The
                              fact that I am currently working full-time on cleaning up the Emacs repoaitory
                              for full git conversion is only one instance of this.
                              --
                              <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
                              (emphasis mine)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X