Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GCC Might Finally Have A Static Analysis Framework Thanks To Red Hat

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by pyler View Post
    Why RedHat must reinvent the wheel and not just contribute to open source static analyzers like clang’s one?
    AFAIK clang can't build the linux kernel and there are many more reasons why people use GCC instead of clang. So having a static analysis is a great feature for it and makes sure we don't have a monoculture in such a critical part of the infrastructure.

    People are bored of gnu/gpl just because these stupid license games.
    Maybe you are bored. Many people who care about sotfware freedom are not.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by pyler View Post
      Even GCC’s license does not require me to upstream and merge my changes. I just have to share my modified sources somewhere at public place, I think.
      By your theory, LLVM is developed by small group of fans and basically dead, since as you said those bug companies do not contribute back. Well, you should check mail addresses of committers and you will be surprised.
      People are bored of gnu/gpl just because these stupid license games.
      It's a pity that so many people completely lost track.
      So for beginners: GNU was founded/invented by R.M. Stallman like GPL and FSF, to make sure that USERS have the power to use a computer for whatever reason they think it could be used for and stay in the control. His vision was new - and brilliant.
      When high competition is at place, even big companies can obey standards (IBM and PCs is such a good example) and respect the freedom of users - but if monopoly power comes into play, people stop thinking, stop working together but saving their ground and enslave their users to never even look at other opportunities (like giving them only one mouse button or parents only a few possibilities to restrict the addiction potential of these phones ).

      That's the reason why Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Intel, Google and others can collaborate in fields no one can say it is dominated by their company.
      Without the GPL (even the weaker version 2), we would have not seen those companies collaborate at all.
      And of cause all want to get rid of that license - GPL - where the users are empowered and those big companies are only allowed to contribute.
      It's a copyleft - so no one can misuse that code - if you try you may lose even your own code to all users.

      Why is Richard Stallman just now under this defamation attack - when alternatives to GNU (not better, just with possibility to be controlled by those companies) arise and under a `more permissive' (concerning those bad companies and maybe the few authors which may gain a fortune) license?
      The users are to be enslaved - that's where money can be made. Everyone should see these nice advertisement and buy SW totally controlled by big companies and own HW which is spied by anyone able to write a small script. (CS)ME and PSP is still around - for no good reason.

      History repeat itself - over and over and over again ...

      So why not give up ... and not follow the easy but dark way. Why?
      I don't think the FSF can give a good answer right now - and I am not sure many of the free software contributors would be able to either.
      RMS gave this answers - over and over again - but who would be listening?
      It's still there, like Free Software in Your Computer and in the Net for everyone to build his own opinion on that topic!
      Why do we all suffer this mitigation madness? Why can companies with really big pocket no longer manufacture CPUs with no flaws which are well known since several years? Just because it doesn't matter. They are making money even with those flaws inbuilt and enabled for years.
      Reasonable desktop CPU - why - DP 1.2 and HDMI 1.4 is enough for the people (current gen) - also just saying DP yes, HDMI yes - why bothering users with version numbers - they may chose more competitive products.
      Nvidia not contributing to open source in any way - no problem. One can use the proprietary driver. When they give up maintaining it - buy a new card!
      But it's not so easy for all users - not even in those developed contries.
      Richard Stallman knew this outcome when starting GNU in 1984 - and he never stopped talking about the many negative effects proprietary code has (SW and HW is concerned) - and now when he is proven to be right from the start ...
      This is really the world for the twitter/flatpak generation with preinstalled systems who buy something because of a logo (or a color).

      And people thinking of Apple as a benevolent company have missed so many news that an argument is no longer reasonable.
      If that kind of news is just fake - as typical for a sect to no longer accept critical opinions - those followers just have to learn it the hard way.
      And what companies are driving forces behind LLVM/Clang, Chrome{ium} - even CUPS.

      But don't get me wrong - LLVM/Clang is wonderful - so GCC has to move and gets better - but hopefully still choosing the right way.
      I would wish we would have a GNU browser and mail client competitive like Firefox or Thunderbird ... that would be great.
      When users are heard and FF could be used for web developers as before (having a simple button directly showing if that web code is conformant) or TB would get basic functionality via direct support and no longer depending on deliberately broken AddOns like FireTray to be able to directly see new incoming mail (which was standard in 1995) ...
      The GNU way is nice ... but currently everything is hinting to the other side ... just misfortune. We are living in dark times ...
      But maybe there is still hope ...

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by treba View Post
        AFAIK clang can't build the linux kernel
        Actually, it can (or typically can until someone commits the next non-standard gcc'ism to the code), as posted here on Phoronix a few months ago. Regardless, there is a lot more C/C++ code in the world then just the linux kernel.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by pyler View Post
          License, we know. But I see no reasons why LLVM’s license is bad for RedHat.
          The license is not so much the issue, but in the real world there is a lot of existing code which contains sufficient gcc'isms that clang is not an option for the tool chain for the code base, so those codes lose that static analysis option. RedHat is responding to their customers real world problems. Good for them.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by pyler View Post
            Even GCC’s license does not require me to upstream and merge my changes. I just have to share my modified sources somewhere at public place, I think.
            This is not actually the case, you can keep your changes private. The GPL just requires you to distribute the source code under the same license to those you distribute a binary to. If you don't distribute binaries to anyone, you don't have to distribute source code to anyone either.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by pyler View Post
              Even GCC’s license does not require me to upstream and merge my changes. I just have to share my modified sources somewhere at public place, I think.
              you can't upstream unless upstream participates, but "just" to share is the whole point
              Originally posted by pyler View Post
              By your theory, LLVM is developed by small group of fans and basically dead,
              no, by his theory llvm is developed by corporations who integrate it in their proprietary codebases
              Originally posted by pyler View Post
              People are bored of gnu/gpl just because these stupid license games.
              people who want to take gpl code and integrate it in their proprietary codebases. but why anyone should give a fuck?

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by treba View Post
                AFAIK clang can't build the linux kernel and there are many more reasons why people use GCC instead of clang.
                Honestly as a C++ dev I just use gcc and clang interchangeably. Each of those have their advantages and they are fantastic tools to have in your toolbelt.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by pyler View Post
                  People are bored of gnu/gpl just because these stupid license games.
                  No, people are bored of permissive licences being proprietary whore.
                  Last edited by Volta; 17 November 2019, 05:31 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by pyler View Post
                    Why RedHat must reinvent the wheel and not just contribute to open source static analyzers like clang’s one?
                    Because they want to have their own edge that others can't have?

                    Companies on LLVM do the same with closed source forks and addons. So please get down from that white horse.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by pyler View Post
                      Why RedHat must reinvent the wheel and not just contribute to open source static analyzers like clang’s one?
                      $ members wheel
                      redhat

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X