From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:08:17 +0100 Message-ID: <87fvabpeu6.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87mw4rxkzv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20150208001527.GA30292@thyrsus.com> <20150209150411.1f0f4e4f@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <20150211111722.181a2201@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423739320 17219 80.91.229.3 (12 Feb 2015 11:08:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:08:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: esr@thyrsus.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, slewsys@gmail.com, "Perry E. Metzger" To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 12 12:08:38 2015 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 1YLrdN-0001vB-4Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:08:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49589 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLrdM-00051T-Ik for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:08:36 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54857) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLrdD-0004sE-Jx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:08:33 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLrdC-0003Db-6o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:08:27 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:47373) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLrdC-0003DX-3t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:08:26 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54543 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLrd4-0001Mz-CL; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:08:18 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 061D3E0D89; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:08:18 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:13:30 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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:182944 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > I ought to distinguish between Apple and the people who started LLVM. That's a bit tricky to do since Chris Lattner, essentially LLVM's project leader, was already employed by Apple (who hired him because of his work on LLVM) when he offered the patches for integrating Clang for inclusion into GCC in 2005. > I don't think the people who started LLVM had any bad intentions. I > apologize for using words that suggested they did. > > I just wish they had made sure Nvidia wouldn't be able to use their > work to make a nonfree compiler. You mean, like offering to contribute the LLVM code to the GNU project? Without the GNU project being interested in their code, the project retained the original free license from the university it started at. Nobody has been shooting us in our foot but ourselves. And if we want to avoid repetition or deterioration, it might be a good idea to stop grasping for scapegoats. Perhaps the most insidious thing we can blame Apple for is not messing with the goose laying free eggs. Apple most definitely is one of the worst offenders when it comes to curtailing user freedom. But their system tooling culture has become much more ambivalent since they moved to a UNIX-like system base. > > But I believe you have asked in the interim that GCC not be made > > more modular out of fear of proprietary reuse of the front or back > > end. > > If you are talking about outputting ASTs, that has nothing to do with > how modular GCC is. This is a different issue. > > I want to make the right decision about the ASTs -- which means, think > carefully and calmly about the issue. Is that a bad thing to do? It depends on the kind of decision resulting. Basically, thinking a year each about the kind of decision that comes up once a month is indistinguishable from "no" regarding the net result. That is a bad thing to do because it does not change anything but still annoys people. If the decision is not just one of its kind but rather a general decision applicable to a whole class of followup decisions, it is a good thing since it stops uncertainty from piling up. At the current point of time, your dictum is that every matter related to LLVM needs to be vetted with you and considered individually. If you state that you will not make any individual decision without thinking carefully and calmly and without pressure about it, then this is a likely recipe for trouble since a growing pile of unsolved problems and people in want of answers are quite detrimental to being able to decide calmly and without pressure. -- David Kastrup