Re: -fdump-translation-unit considered harmful

[Pjotr Kourzanov <peter dot kourzanov at xs4all dot nl>]

Richard,

  One of the objections to exporting tree internals in an open-format
was that it would make life easier for people that what want to write 
software that circumvents GPL by reusing internals of the GCC.

  Of course, defining the API would require such software to link to 
the GCC, which is "extension" of its functionality and implying that it 
must be covered by the GPL. By happy circumstance, this also means a 
speed boost for such software;-)

  However, "extending" GCC in this way would needlessly complicate (an 
already quite complicated) software stack - we may expect tons of 
plugins appearing...

  One possible remedy is to allow "direct" function calls across 
address spaces. In this situation the GCC's cc1(plus) would be started 
in one process, with a source-analyzing application(s) in another 
process(es). These processes would communicate using pipes and /readonly 
pairwise shared/ memory (each one can read, but not write data of its peer).

  Hence my question: would GPL cover an executable that runs in a 
separate address space, albeit having some sections /readonly pairwise 
shared/ with GCC's cc1(plus)?

  BTW, the GCC's backend(s) need not undergo dramatic patching, since 
all they need to do is to pause when the tree has been built and wait 
until the source-analyzing code has done its job (which can be done with 
simple pipes). This, and a tweak of the backend's allocation routines to 
allocate from a shared memory (rather than an anonymously mapped) 
segment should be sufficient...

  The http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html gives a definite answer 
only when static or dynamic linking is used, or when an RPC-like 
mechanism is used. Here is a dual borderline case to the one that is 
explained in the FAQ: insead of dynamically linking and executing just 
main(), one can start a separate process and have fine-grained 
interactions (as opposed to RPC) initiated from it. Would the situation 
I described above be still acceptable, given the GCC's definition of the 
"arms length" communication?


Richard Stallman wrote:
> I think it would be a ok to define an interface for GCC to
> link with source-analyzing code.  At least, I don't see any
> particular problem in it.  It would be like adding such code
> to GCC, more or less.