From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ian Lance Taylor Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.devel,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: clang and FSF's strategy Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:31:43 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20140121201949.21DE1380522@snark.thyrsus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1390354308 2846 80.91.229.3 (22 Jan 2014 01:31:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 01:31:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, GCC Development , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Eric S. Raymond" Original-X-From: gcc-return-181659-gcc=m.gmane.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Jan 22 02:31:54 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcc@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from server1.sourceware.org ([209.132.180.131] helo=sourceware.org) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W5mfZ-0004w7-EB for gcc@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 02:31:53 +0100 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:sender :mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=LVL90p+n2BXMaeNxnN tW9hJJFszincAH4V2xu+HZg2aMKqTHyvh6khyBzWhWO7wAgkdzQPGCehzghwYoka 4S91k+bZTJFB9PcMwnmjMcjZlAFJMyh94lX0GW9hKCjEW+3+fMxzA3rmlOdt5ewD L03bU83cinFObO1EvwK8MEx3g= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:sender :mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; s=default; bh=3qK5Q7RgJIWgvJiMTSwOSkE8 tRU=; b=MscOMn9CfBvLS1Plr0RIJ0/2OwqrIohEfItagDL2x5pwVXtcbOY8xQql Rv3Okah6bN7C7RybPAq+yhT8ZLjCbaSKKNW+CES+bmHensaI843TKE3luTzKQbYi m5PBg9EGfsfMXvFW2UtADoSpUfXDrEbu+G1VHUdMI0XOm0T2hqs= Original-Received: (qmail 13697 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2014 01:31:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Original-Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Original-Received: (qmail 13684 invoked by uid 89); 22 Jan 2014 01:31:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ob0-f177.google.com Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f177.google.com) (209.85.214.177) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 01:31:45 +0000 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id wp18so7675662obc.36 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:31:44 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=jFwrM5fWpdGxuiCXfwJw/4/kt+22NzreBGoiSM3MAkQ=; b=gGWtBTUL3qDtBc7lkPO4zgnxjs0AK9gyUrwMFWWuLlWeDYuECZXeXrSq2mPpCDN+RW 3z/puAwfl1/HZ/OsGR6BjI1HccIyHgMZPXgJSo3revXRDQzYPIO85kSc4IieMPmIzFPv pyB9V0ats7RDcezWMh8VYo1JSWesdyzx+SR5nCqYOTPn5AARZdisMZFbQWvFATE0Y6Ld 6+ld0yLuQrWIdIRIW4RUOxz26Qt4h/LpSIMMb0M8nXneufEVoUuL+v8QVj6X1wdG+/hT uYXqXdZfAXDdBlNtEtVYMydltx+IOW9g/HlvZjw2zM49kmh9xCsM1GmLLldL7ypUfp84 GEzA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkz7MsGijxXlWcqEZShh5ydHxMwm4Pk62EXIOVbwbCpJRc19Hd9YJTRQyvUxV1ZEFz6iFl3hBjXZmQaNn7QdbMgzf/z4Ax793EteI9H6Ma/y5uHIsbZMWa7nFh89GHt7AajgSwUXxIrGg7fPOeDhW/phs3yFdxYn5aN1I5lG5VRwBbfqJCUbFPHDKwjaq+aHj8WrDjA X-Received: by 10.182.55.65 with SMTP id q1mr23838493obp.2.1390354303927; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:31:43 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.60.39.170 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:31:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140121201949.21DE1380522@snark.thyrsus.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.gcc.devel:134103 gmane.emacs.devel:168862 Archived-At: On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > Wouldn't it make sense, then, to entirely drop the factoring > restrictions from GCC so it can compete for developer attention more > effectively with clang? > > Before clang existed, back when GCC had a near monopoly in its > competitive space, there might have been a functional case for those > restrictions. Reasonable people may differ on that; there's no point > in arguing it retrospectively. Now, I submit, they have become a pointless > gesture that serves only to hinder GCC development abd increase > clang's competitive advantage. > > GCC has a lot of strengths to play from, most notably the maturity of > its multiplatform and cross-development support. I urge the FSF to > fully free the code - drop the policy restrictions, encourage a > flourishing ecosystem of surrounding plugins. Let GCC, clang, and > other alternatives compete for attention on pure technical merit. I'm sympathetic to our comments regarding GCC vs. clang. But I'm not sure I grasp your proposed solution. GCC does support plugins, and has supported them for a few releases now. GCC plugins have what turns out to be a significant defect: the plugin interface simply exposes GCC internals, and as such is not stable across releases. I pushed for plugins in GCC, and I thought this unstable interface would be OK, but I was wrong. For general plugins to be useful, we need a more stable interface. But that is a technical issue, not a licensing issue. You are talking about licensing issues. Do you think the licensing requirements on plugins are too onerous? Because of the non-standard interface, the most effective way for people to write plugins for GCC today is to use something like MELT (http://gcc-melt.org) or the GCC Python plugin (https://fedorahosted.org/gcc-python-plugin/). These provide a somewhat more standard interface across releases. Ideally we would develop a standard interface for C as well. There have been some efforts along those lines but as far as I know none of them have been committed to the tree. Ian