Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 25, 2014 23:52 UTC (Sat) by deepfire (guest, #26138)
In reply to: Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft by Cyberax
Parent article: Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Isn't this how you would shim GCC? In fact, the best way to shim it, since this totally insulates the IR-receiver from GCC API volatility.

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 26, 2014 12:59 UTC (Sun) by deepfire (guest, #26138) [Link] (2 responses)

I obviously messed up GCC with LLVM above, but the point, obviously, still stands.

Which makes me think -- wouldn't _exactly_ same be possible to do with GCC - today?

Can't think of anything to stop it.

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 26, 2014 20:49 UTC (Sun) by stevenb (guest, #11536) [Link] (1 responses)

It's been discussed at length on GCC mailing lists. A port for PTX exists and probably will be included for the next development cycle (after GCC 4.9).

More information:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-11/msg00410.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00842.html

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 26, 2014 20:59 UTC (Sun) by deepfire (guest, #26138) [Link]

I'm stumped -- doesn't Stallman seek to prevent exactly this shimming of GCC?

What's the remaining practical difference between restrictions that GCC and LLVM put on extensions then?

Heck, what's the fuss all about?