Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apple Originally Tried To Give GPL'ed LLVM To GCC

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

  • Apple Originally Tried To Give GPL'ed LLVM To GCC

    Phoronix: Apple Originally Tried To Give GPL'ed LLVM To GCC

    Phoronix was the first to report widespread on Richard Stallman calling LLVM a "terrible setback" with the innovative and growing compiler infrastructure being put out under a BSD-style license instead of the GPL. Well, a little known fact is that when LLVM was first starting out, Apple tried integrating LLVM changes with GCC but it was rejected by the GCC developers...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU4MzE

  • #2
    Fantastic article, Michael! Factual, informative, FUD fighting. I don't use Apple products, nor do I condone their attempts to destroy Android with hurtful patent crap. I also prefer GPL over BSD licenses. But what's true, is true. Cheers!

    Comment


    • #3
      Ein Ubuntu, ein brrfs, ein LLVM, ein Drindl !

      Seriously, enough is enough. That "journalism" just stinks. There are many attempts to different things that was rejected almost every day in hundreds of free projects over planet. Apple or NBA backdoors, dont matter.
      Last edited by storm_st; 25 January 2014, 12:31 PM. Reason: spelling

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by storm_st View Post
        There are many attempts to different things that was rejected almost every day in hundreds of free projects over planet. Apple or NBA backdoors, dont matter.
        Yeah, Michael Jordan wants to mess with your generated assembly

        Comment


        • #5
          I wish Michael would have read the mails himself before posting this article.

          First it looks like Lattner has been asked by gcc devs to propose llvm integration. The majority of the replies seem to have been positive about C++ usage. I didn't see anyone protesting agains llvm modularity.

          There have been concerns about missing debug info and a few other bits like limited platform backends, but nothing that would have been unfixable from what i read.

          The major issue noted in multiple replies has been:
          > The lack of FSF copyright assignment for LLVM is a problem. It may
          > even be a bigger problem than what we think. Then again, it may not.
          > I just don't know. What I do know is that this must absolutely be
          > resolved before we even think of adding LLVM to any branch. Chris
          > said he'd be adding LLVM to the apple branch soon. I hope the FSF
          > assignment is worked out by then. I understand that even code in
          > branches should be under FSF copyright assignment.
          Let me guess that this never happened...

          Comment


          • #6
            "Apple was trying to do the right thing" ummm so by Michael's logic, LLVM should have been integrated into GCC to be kept under the GPL license... What the actual f... ?! Are you serious?

            There was nobody stopping Apple to license LLVM under the GPL if they wanted it, integrated into GCC or not.

            Rising up shit storms is what passes for journalism these days.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by log0 View Post
              Let me guess that this never happened...
              Of course it didn't. Apple wanted to pull the old Microsoft EEE trick with GCC but FSF anticipated that.

              Comment


              • #8
                Years later...

                8 years later and GCC is still generally the superior compiler collection.

                All that weight behind LLVM (not just apple, but the BSD's too) has gotten it to almost catch up, but while that may be concernworthy, in relation to freedoms, it also is a testament to the GCC that it still hasnt been dethroned.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Offtopic but I would like to see GCC 5 using C
                  a dream that will never come true...

                  GCC developers didn't like the modular and library design of LLVM, LLVM wasn't formally "done" at that point, and there was some "Not Invented Here" syndrome going on by the FSF developers.
                  Source or you are a big fat troll

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                    Fantastic article, Michael! Factual, informative, FUD fighting. I don't use Apple products, nor do I condone their attempts to destroy Android with hurtful patent crap. I also prefer GPL over BSD licenses. But what's true, is true. Cheers!
                    The article is a delirious tall tale intended for those who can't take off their rose-colored glasses even for a second.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X