Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GCC & LLVM Developers May Begin Collaborating

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

  • GCC & LLVM Developers May Begin Collaborating

    Phoronix: GCC & LLVM Developers May Begin Collaborating

    As an interesting turn of events after Richard Stallman called LLVM a "terrible setback" and the discussion that ensued, it turns out that the GCC and LLVM/Clang developers might start to better collaborate under some sort of open-source compiler initiative...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU5Njk

  • #2
    BSD being interested in collaboration is no surprise. It's the GNU guys not shoeing them off the door that is the real shocker.

    I keep envisioning Saint IGNUcius bursting into an LLVM\GCC boardroom-meeting wielding a plastic lightsaber and wearing a modified Don Quixote's armour while shouting "Freedom!" while smacking people about...

    Comment


    • #3
      i actually thought that variety was a blessing in the compiler world, so one can better check, why one is working while the other isn't...

      Comment


      • #4
        "The Free Compiler Initiative" would be better

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jakubo View Post
          i actually thought that variety was a blessing in the compiler world, so one can better check, why one is working while the other isn't...
          When doing commercial development (from the user standpoint, not the compiler developer), I started (about 2yrs ago) doing compiles on all of LLVM, GCC and ICC to guarantee compatibility. Unless needing to use special features of each of the compilers, I tend to make sure that my commercial code works based upon slightly different opinions about the spec. It is quite nice that there are several either free or free-to-get compilers :-).

          John Dyson

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jakubo View Post
            i actually thought that variety was a blessing in the compiler world, so one can better check, why one is working while the other isn't...
            Indeed, but for some initiatives like non-standard extensions, or interfaces, or options, you cannot check on several compilers unless they try to implement the same thing.

            Comment


            • #7
              That he is surprised that it didn't turn into a flamewar says something...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bjotn View Post
                That he is surprised that it didn't turn into a flamewar says something...
                He's suffering from overexposure to his forums, obviously.

                Comment


                • #9
                  For me all of that are just some talk.
                  RMS basicly said release everything with gpl3+ lisense, thats normal, I agree to that.

                  Who cares about freedom should do so, but that was the case before Richard told that anyway.
                  Did he fear that some people belived that when they release their stuff under bsd that its free then?

                  And to this point its clear, the gcc devs can take all the code and include it and make out of this peaces gpl3 code.

                  The other way around thats not working. So I see no problem for gcc, just everybody who cares about freedom release his stuff under gpl lisence who not cares use bsd lisenses.

                  K that rms again says how bad apple and this stuff is ist ok as a reminder but has no direct effect I think?

                  So this working together attempt make no sence because gpl devs can use both code anyway it would only help the unfree stuff?

                  Why would somebody from the gcc team want to do that?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                    For me all of that are just some talk.
                    RMS basicly said release everything with gpl3+ lisense, thats normal, I agree to that.

                    Who cares about freedom should do so, but that was the case before Richard told that anyway.
                    Did he fear that some people belived that when they release their stuff under bsd that its free then?

                    And to this point its clear, the gcc devs can take all the code and include it and make out of this peaces gpl3 code.

                    The other way around thats not working. So I see no problem for gcc, just everybody who cares about freedom release his stuff under gpl lisence who not cares use bsd lisenses.

                    K that rms again says how bad apple and this stuff is ist ok as a reminder but has no direct effect I think?

                    So this working together attempt make no sence because gpl devs can use both code anyway it would only help the unfree stuff?

                    Why would somebody from the gcc team want to do that?
                    Exactly my thought.

                    RMS's view on BSD LLVM is clear and not positive. I don't see why GCC devs would bother with LLVM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                      For me all of that are just some talk.
                      RMS basicly said release everything with gpl3+ lisense, thats normal, I agree to that.

                      Who cares about freedom should do so, but that was the case before Richard told that anyway.
                      Did he fear that some people belived that when they release their stuff under bsd that its free then?

                      And to this point its clear, the gcc devs can take all the code and include it and make out of this peaces gpl3 code.

                      The other way around thats not working. So I see no problem for gcc, just everybody who cares about freedom release his stuff under gpl lisence who not cares use bsd lisenses.

                      K that rms again says how bad apple and this stuff is ist ok as a reminder but has no direct effect I think?

                      So this working together attempt make no sence because gpl devs can use both code anyway it would only help the unfree stuff?

                      Why would somebody from the gcc team want to do that?
                      Keep drinking the kool aid crazy one.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by c117152 View Post
                        BSD being interested in collaboration is no surprise. It's the GNU guys not shoeing them off the door that is the real shocker.
                        Well, the thing is, I think Stallman is spot on about Apple's hatred of open source (they will use BSD-licensed code while just meeting the release requirements, but having online store terms that are incompatible with the GPL).

                        However, I for one (and I think quite a few others) do not consider the BSD license itself to be some big problem in and of itself as Stallman does. Merely collaborating between the LLVM and GCC developers is simply not an issue as far as I'm concerned. For contributors who do not object, they could go as far as dual-licensing contributions that apply to both (so GCC could use the contribution with GPL license, and LLVM with BSD license.)

                        I'm curious, since LLVM has been modular all along, and gcc has become more modular of late, is it possible to have a seperately-licensed "plugin" for either one?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by hwertz View Post
                          I'm curious, since LLVM has been modular all along, and gcc has become more modular of late, is it possible to have a seperately-licensed "plugin" for either one?
                          If I remember correctly, LLVM/Clang allows for proprietary (or separately licensed) plugins, but GCC requires plugins to be GPL.
                          Remember that article a little while ago where there was a guy asking the GCC devs to lessen their restrictions on plugins?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think this is a nice idea. The thing is, licenses are irrelevant in this context. They could just as well collaborate with Visual Studio developers. This is not about code, but about ideas. Sharing the plans of both is nice and can result in less compatibility problems down the road, as well as keep new features in sync. They will be created separately due to license and structural reasons, but that's fine as it will be possible to compare the implementations of both.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by hwertz View Post
                              For contributors who do not object, they could go as far as dual-licensing contributions that apply to both (so GCC could use the contribution with GPL license, and LLVM with BSD license.)
                              That's pretty stupid. GCC can already take any code they want from LLVM and re-license it under GPL. Cooperation is not necessary for that.

                              Only LLVM would gain something from that arrangement.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X