This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: clang vs free software
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: esr at thyrsus dot com
- Cc: Helmut Eller <eller dot helmut at gmail dot com>, rms at gnu dot org, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:12:28 +0000
- Subject: Re: clang vs free software
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAJnXXoi2MLpZWxOxknR=mNR91JdZcHrKRsqYZSWY373fvwxObg at mail dot gmail dot com> <87eh439w1n dot fsf at uwakimon dot sk dot tsukuba dot ac dot jp> <CAJnXXojjSAWL8cqZp0X16xa81R73huywtTS90p6O3CpRaPOiDQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <jwvwqhu8zcg dot fsf-monnier+emacs at gnu dot org> <87ha8yqvup dot fsf at engster dot org> <E1W5cXI-0000j4-8x at fencepost dot gnu dot org> <CAJnXXoiuzZhjDGpvXY7psee=+bXn1rB+GdELYP0FS0CuWPqYeQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <E1W6HwP-0001WU-Tg at fencepost dot gnu dot org> <87r47zezcc dot fsf at fencepost dot gnu dot org> <m2eh3ykc3y dot fsf at gmail dot com> <20140123174934 dot GA10933 at thyrsus dot com>
On 23 January 2014 17:49, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> (Redirected to the proper lists, excluding emacs-devel.)
Why do you think the gcc list is the proper place?
> The clang people aren't just a technical challenge to GCC, they're a
> philosophical/political one to the FSF as well. They are explicitly
> reacting, and positioning themselves publicly against, what they
> consider FSF over-control.
The company that started Clang doesn't like the GPL, of course they
position themselves against its philosophy. I'm not sure why you think
that means GCC should follow. Are we supposed to be surprised that a
proprietary code vendor finds the GPL prevents them doing certain
things? Isn't that the point?
> Carruth then says, exasperation very obvious in his voice, "This is *not*
> a *useful answer*!" (about 3:42 in the video). Thus, the clang project.
I'm not sure your version of history is accurate. Google didn't start
the project.
> They
> want to build IDEs and other tools that share the compiler's code. GCC
> policy won't let them do that. Ergo, GCC must be kicked aside.
Good for them, why do you think the gcc list is the proper place to
tell this story?
> The clang developers are demonstrating that they have the capacity to make
> good on this threat. clang is not a toy or a laboratory demonstration; it
> is a real, production-quality compiler with some significant advantages over
> GCC. Much more useful error messages is one; a newer generation of
> optimization leading to smaller, tighter code is another; and much faster
> compilation is yet another.
Have you done a real comparison of error messages from the latest
releases? Have you measured how much faster Clang compiles once you
crank up the optimisation to the level that real programs use?
If you're just going to parrot the usual outdated claims please do it
somewhere else, we've heard them before.
> I'm not pointing out these facts to argue with the FSF's past decisions,
> but to ask "What are you going to do now?"
Why do you think the gcc list is the proper place to ask questions of the FSF?