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?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
C++11 & The Long-Term Viability Of GCC Is Questioned
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostWhy did LLVM developers not just help MS Visual Studio?
vs.
Last edited by -MacNuke-; 26 January 2013, 04:01 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hubick View PostAre all of your 2500 posts this insightful?
Thanks to -MacNuke- for using his 4th post to answer.
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
-
MS Visual Studio will not accept GPL patches. Neither will LLVM.
?Your 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
-
Originally posted by vertexSymphony View Post?Your 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
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
-
True, but I don't see it as a catastrophe
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.
If closed-source developers prefer cannibalising LLVM to fit into their products, then they shold continue doing so.
So I find your argument a little bit misleading and visceral.
Relicensing GCC for that purpose would be suicide, IMHO.
That's one of the newer technical expectations if GCC wants to get an ecosystem building around like LLVM/Clang is having.
Regards
Comment
Comment