From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:15:01 -0500 Message-ID: References: <52FE2985.4070703@yandex.ru> <831tz5daes.fsf@gnu.org> <8738jlohd6.fsf@yandex.ru> <83txc1bl83.fsf@gnu.org> <5300189A.9090208@yandex.ru> <83wqgv9fbj.fsf@gnu.org> <20140216180712.236069f6@forcix.jorgenschaefer.de> <87wqgr4v18.fsf@yandex.ru> <53064BD0.7070009@yandex.ru> <87ha7tr5bo.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ppmhecd8.fsf@yandex.ru> <87mwhjdq32.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87r46s9y6m.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393348510 2177 80.91.229.3 (25 Feb 2014 17:15:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:15:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 25 18:15:20 2014 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 1WILbA-00053q-5i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:15:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36149 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WILb9-0003Mc-OV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:15:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48492) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WILax-00033J-2y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:15:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WILaw-0001fn-31 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:15:02 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:50636) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WILav-0001fg-VP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:15:02 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WILav-0000PS-AV; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:15:01 -0500 In-reply-to: <87r46s9y6m.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (message from David Kastrup on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:13:05 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:169865 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > As a general statement, that is valid -- but I think you're > overestimating Clang's effects on GCC. "tremendous harm to our movement" were your words. That's right, but we are miscommunicating. The harm is tremendous, but at the same time it is limited in range: it affects C and C++. It doesn't affect the other languages that they don't intend to support. If we were to take this as a reason to give up on resisting the use of parts of GCC as part of a nonfree compiler (*), we would extend the problems to the other languages. > Actually yes they were (though not with those words). Someone cited > my decision against having GCC write a complete syntax tree. That > output would make it easy to use GCC as a front end for nonfree > back-ends. That would be tantamount to making nonfree versions of > GCC. I disagree. Disagree if you like, but I think it is true in this case. The case of M4 and Autoconf might not be comparable. * When I say "nonfree versions of GCC", what I mean is the use of parts of GCC as part of a nonfree compiler. There are various ways that could be implemented, but the harm is the same. I won't always remember to state it so carefully. Please don't quibble when I don't. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.