Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C++11 & The Long-Term Viability Of GCC Is Questioned

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

  • #11
    But would modularising GCC basically mean recreating LLVM's design? I'd be curious to see why the GCC developers would think that route to be better than just helping improve LLVM?

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by hubick View Post
      I'd be curious to see why the GCC developers would think that route to be better than just helping improve LLVM?
      GPL vs. BSD licence wars... i think

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by hubick View Post
        But would modularising GCC basically mean recreating LLVM's design? I'd be curious to see why the GCC developers would think that route to be better than just helping improve LLVM?
        Why did LLVM developers not just help MS Visual Studio?

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
          Why did LLVM developers not just help MS Visual Studio?
          http://llvm.org/releases/3.2/LICENSE.TXT

          vs.

          http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/buy
          Last edited by -MacNuke-; 01-26-2013, 03:01 PM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
            Why did LLVM developers not just help MS Visual Studio?
            Are all of your 2500 posts this insightful?

            Thanks to -MacNuke- for using his 4th post to answer.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by hubick View Post
              Are all of your 2500 posts this insightful?

              Thanks to -MacNuke- for using his 4th post to answer.
              It's more insightful than you think.

              There are many compilers out there, and they have different internal organisation (different companies behind them) and different goals.

              MS Visual Studio will not accept GPL patches. Neither will LLVM.

              Comment


              • #17
                MS Visual Studio will not accept GPL patches. Neither will LLVM.
                And GCC won't accept BSD-like licensed patches also (the FSF prefer the authors to rennouce to their copyright; and the FSF naturally have that newly assigned code licensed under the GPLv3) → http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal // http://gcc.gnu.org/gccmission.html

                żYour point? I don't see GCC dying ... but it could definitely be thrown out his golden throne if it doesn't adapt to newer expectations when it comes to compilers (and that could require not only a tech work, but also a legal work of at least a partial re-licensing to something like the LGPL)

                Regards.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by vertexSymphony View Post
                  żYour point? I don't see GCC dying ... but it could definitely be thrown out his golden throne if it doesn't adapt to newer expectations when it comes to compilers
                  True, but I don't see it as a catastrophe, and I doubt the FSF does either. GCC was never meant to sit on a golden throne. If we have two top-notch compilers, one GPL and one BSD, that would be amazing for everybody, including the FSF.

                  I do hope that GCC continues to improve and be a healthy compiler project. But because it's good for the project, not because of trying to catch some imaginary lead. If closed-source developers prefer cannibalising LLVM to fit into their products, then they shold continue doing so. Relicensing GCC for that purpose would be suicide, IMHO.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    True, but I don't see it as a catastrophe
                    +1

                    GCC was never meant to sit on a golden throne. If we have two top-notch compilers, one GPL and one BSD, that would be amazing for everybody, including the FSF.
                    Yes, nobody should really be happy about this ... having competition and compiler diversity is actually something *everyone* benefits from; and hearing the GCC people talking about being fit for being able to compete is a good example of that.

                    If closed-source developers prefer cannibalising LLVM to fit into their products, then they shold continue doing so.
                    Yes and no ... projects like KDevelop, Qt Creator, vim (there's already works on this, and a plugin which invokes clang for completion) and Code::Blocks could nourish from the fact that LLVM/Clang is modular and allows to use their highly advances parser, and that enables them to make their codebase more easier to mantain and more fit (by not entering the swamp of code parsing/analysis), and that could give space to a next-step evolution of IDEs of having really complex parsing (and features building on top of that) done in real time and a paired support of features with the compiler (and not having things like today's where your IDEs code parsing is not supporting something your compiler does, awfully true with C++11) : Without worrying about code tainting the original project decision with the license.

                    So I find your argument a little bit misleading and visceral.

                    Relicensing GCC for that purpose would be suicide, IMHO.
                    I was talking about a partial re-license which would make possible to offer the *use* this facility without being viral with the license.
                    That's one of the newer technical expectations if GCC wants to get an ecosystem building around like LLVM/Clang is having.

                    Regards

                    Comment


                    • #20

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X