From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Yates Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:19:45 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20140216180712.236069f6@forcix.jorgenschaefer.de> <87wqgr4v18.fsf@yandex.ru> <53064BD0.7070009@yandex.ru> <87ha7tr5bo.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ppmhecd8.fsf@yandex.ru> <87y50z90pd.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87txbn8r6x.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8338j717oe.fsf@gnu.org> <87zjlf6tdx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83sir7yue7.fsf@gnu.org> <8761o3dlak.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <871tyqes5q.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87a9ddg7o8.fsf@engster.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01634eee8eb48a04f355c3b4 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393449583 21387 80.91.229.3 (26 Feb 2014 21:19:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:19:43 +0000 (UTC) To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D3scar_Fuentes?= , Emacs developers Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 26 22:19:53 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 1WIltQ-0005vn-6X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:19:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43231 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WIltP-0004ma-L7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:19:51 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52950) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WIltL-0004iF-LT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:19:49 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WIltK-0000GA-JR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:19:47 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yk0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c07::231]:57432) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WIltK-0000G5-Em for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:19:46 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-yk0-f177.google.com with SMTP id q200so4129389ykb.8 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:19:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=A5BlxtJmPNv8wprVH3AyckcQDrhqNnYfWXaUgVbfQLA=; b=NOaUkbQ2IxNDWoXbF1RDHbFntSUTiZ/4HOKncUxUFDmPockt/CSM0qeyjxaIwDGS48 nFrKu0GqhaiC69eX53TLkKkhZaxVF9CwMYENvqTNRW9ZuE1dA0R5BTr99XNWB+WNUbp6 24eVBOksaFCMNMGqAERDxGhoXJ9BLZtueQLYzOsSQfThK+PJcf0iFgZQzQvu6cFegOQ+ pzMyNCxr8N6ZjEJ2CGKkBoGOEFxJ+Nh58SSPaLLcn8vgqlxH79bvaFoDNmLGqwamYsqW nxzGxpXziMeZRo+3U51jj2YJ1FDTkhHE6A4khPkLAGviMwv73JmF4jACYvxytgIRf6NB 3e+A== X-Received: by 10.236.16.83 with SMTP id g59mr10870336yhg.14.1393449585519; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:19:45 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.170.46.138 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:19:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87a9ddg7o8.fsf@engster.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: Zv7ikHNkFu3d6aXmj2CNMCbh8Hc X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4002:c07::231 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:169895 Archived-At: --089e01634eee8eb48a04f355c3b4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:28 AM, David Engster wrote: > > IMHO, "Refactoring C++" should not be in the job description. Yet Google is happily applying clang to just that problem: Refactoring C++ with Clang: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U98rhV6wONo Clang MapReduce -- Automatic C++ Refactoring at Google Scale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbDzTM21BQ To me it is the publicizing of that kind of work that undercuts gcc, not whether DragonEgg links clang with the gcc backend or whether somebody might offer a proprietary product involving some gcc code. (If the product meets with minimal commercial success do we really care that deeply?) Gcc may still produce better code than clang+llvm but clang is enabling exciting computer science and engineering for which gcc is inappropriate. Not because the source is not available. But because the gcc codebase does not expose the right interfaces and abstractions. /john --089e01634eee8eb48a04f355c3b4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:28 AM, David Engster <deng@randomsample.de> wrote:
&g= t;
> IMHO, "Refactoring C++" should not be in the job descr= iption.

Yet Google is happily applying clang to just that problem:

Refac= toring C++ with Clang:
=A0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DU98rhV6wONo

Clang M= apReduce -- Automatic C++ Refactoring at Google Scale:
=A0 http://www.you= tube.com/watch?v=3DmVbDzTM21BQ

To me it is the publi= cizing of that kind of work that undercuts gcc, not whether DragonEgg links= clang with the gcc backend or whether somebody might offer a proprietary p= roduct involving some gcc code. =A0(If the product meets with minimal comme= rcial success do we really care that deeply?)

Gcc may still produce better code than clang+llvm but c= lang is enabling exciting computer science and engineering for which gcc is= inappropriate. =A0Not because the source is not available. =A0But because = the gcc codebase does not expose the right interfaces and abstractions.

/john
--089e01634eee8eb48a04f355c3b4--