From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Pascal J. Bourguignon" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: clang/emacs/ecb/semantic Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:50:09 +0100 Organization: Informatimago Message-ID: <87zk1yhib2.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> References: <20940A983D814C6192ABFF2B7A269A88@gmail.com> <87wqx42nag.fsf@yandex.ru> <87ehjcrw70.fsf@engster.org> <87hao816w4.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87hao7ioos.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1354312231 2708 80.91.229.3 (30 Nov 2012 21:50:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:50:31 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 30 22:50:44 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TeYTq-0007lc-NH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:50:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50221 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TeYTf-0004xb-E8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:50:31 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:50224) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TeYTc-0004xT-Oh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:50:29 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TeYTb-00022D-EI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:50:28 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:44981) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TeYTb-00021m-7U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:50:27 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TeYTi-0007Zm-7J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:50:34 +0100 Original-Received: from 92.103.75.130 ([92.103.75.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:50:34 +0100 Original-Received: from pjb by 92.103.75.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:50:34 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 58 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 92.103.75.130 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwAQMAAABtzGvEAAAABlBMVEUAAAD///+l2Z/dAAAA oElEQVR4nK3OsRHCMAwF0O8YQufUNIQRGIAja9CxSA55AxZgFO4coMgYrEDDQZWPIlNAjwq9 033pbOBPtbXuB6PKNBn5gZkhGa86Z4x2wE67O+06WxGD/HCOGR0deY3f9Ijwwt7rNGNf6Oac l/GuZTF1wFGKiYYHKSFAkjIo1b6sCYS1sVmFhhhahKQssRjRT90ITWUk6vvK3RsPGs+M1RuR mV+hO/VvFAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== X-Accept-Language: fr, es, en User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:NWUyNjVhYzg0OTY1ODU2YTQ3ZTg4MWQ5ZmJiZmExODljYjJhZTA4Yw== X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:155155 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > Something that should have been merged into gcc a long time ago. > > It generates the parse tree as xml. http://www.gccxml.org/ > > Do you mean, the entire parse tree in full detail? > Would it be conceivable to feed this into a nonfree back-end? > Would this mean that nonfree backends could take advantage > of our free front-ends? > > If so, it is very dangerous -- it would open the door to a terrible > setback for our defense of users' freedom. Namely, the use of free > software as part of compilers that are partly nonfree. I don't > remember, but I would guess that is why we have refused to merge it > into GCC. I can understand this reasonning. But in practice the conclusion is that Apple switches to llvm/clang, and llvm/clang as a lot of momentum everywhere. Wouldn't have been better to accept gcc-xml and have gcc cover 99% of the "market", rather than rejecting it, and eventually have gcc left with only 10% of the mind share, and clang/llvm 90%? I'm afraid this might end like that. > Llvm and clang provide natively a way to get the parse tree (and other > phases information), and therefore they can be used easily in IDE. > > LLVM and Clang open the door to the same terrible setback. Since they > are not copylefted, their front-ends can be used with nonfree > back-ends and vice versa. Definitely. It's bad they're not GPL, and it's bad they're used in non GPL environments. But that's how things are. llvm and clang are providing a superior alternative to gcc for tool and IDE builders. > They are being developed by people who don't care about users' > freedom, funded by the worst enemy of users' freedom (Apple). I don't know if Apple funds LLVM. AFAIK it started as a normal university project. Would a good alternative (for freedom) to be that free compilers (GPL) provide the exact formal grammar they parse, so that tool builders could use it to write compatible parsers to use in their tools? For example, now emacs has with cedet several parser generators (bovinator, Wysent, etc), but they are not widely (easily) applied to a large number of languages, because the grammars (of specific implementations) are often not so easy to retrieve in a usable form. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.