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: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:13:30 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87mw4rxkzv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20150208001527.GA30292@thyrsus.com> <20150209150411.1f0f4e4f@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <20150211111722.181a2201@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423696440 9427 80.91.229.3 (11 Feb 2015 23:14:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:14:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: esr@thyrsus.com, dak@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, slewsys@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Perry E. Metzger" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 12 00:13:55 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 1YLgTh-00052O-Lw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:13:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47381 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLgTh-0000Kt-1d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:13:53 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50381) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLgTM-0008Ep-U0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:13:33 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLgTL-00080d-P7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:13:32 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:35846) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLgTL-00080V-Lc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:13:31 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLgTK-0007sY-RA; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:13:30 -0500 In-reply-to: <20150211111722.181a2201@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> (perry@piermont.com) 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:182929 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. ]]] > Perhaps I am mistaken, but it *appears* you have characterized LLVM as > a deliberate attempt to destroy particular works (such as GCC) of the > Free Software Foundation. That's what it is for Apple -- though rather than "destroy", I would say "cause to cease to be important and influential". Apple would not care if some people continue to use GCC for something. What directly affects us is the effects of LLVM, not the intentions. If the effects are bad, good intentions can't override them. If the effects are not bad, there is no problem, regardless of any bad intentions. However, it is no coincidence that these bad effects result from Apple's intentions. These effects are what Apple is working for. I ought to distinguish between Apple and the people who started LLVM. In some of my previous messages, I failed to do this. I was influenced by an emotional reaction to the harsh attacks I received in this list. 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. I was presenting evidence that no such > deliberation existed in the design. Why would the program's _design_ have anything to do with any of this? > Similarly, you characterized LLDB > as a deliberate attempt to undermine GDB, I said it might be that (for Apple). I don't know whether it is that. > 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? -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.