The GlobalGCC project launches
From: | Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile-AT-starynkevitch.net> | |
To: | gcc-AT-gcc.gnu.org | |
Subject: | [ANNOUNCE] GlobalGCC [GGCC] project (within ITEA programme) | |
Date: | Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:00:05 +0100 | |
Cc: | arnaud.laprevote-AT-mandriva.com, contact-AT-ggcc.info |
Dear All, My collegues from the GGCC consortium have asked me to send the following announcement to this GCC mailing list. Please reply to contact@ggcc.info, arnaud.laprevote@mandriva.com for any remarks and questions regarding GGCC ################################################################ ANNOUNCEMENT for the launch of the GlobalGCC [GGCC] project within the ITEA [Information Technology for European Advancement] programme GENERAL INFORMATION In September 2006, a 15-partners consortium has started to work on the GlobalGCC [GGCC] project, within the ITEA [Information Technology for European Advancement] programme (see http://www.itea2.org/). The GGCC project will last 30 months and is partly funded (around 30%-40%) by French, Spanish and Swedish public authorities. The partnership is composed of various types of entities (Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) +, big corporations ++, research labs and universities *) that are listed hereafter in alphabetical order per country: in France: Airbus/France (++), Bertin (+), CEA-LIST (*), INRIA-Futurs (*), Mandriva (+) in Spain: Aquiline (+), Answare (+), Base (+), IDI Eikon (+), SQS (+), Telefonica I+D (++), UPM (*) in Sweden: MySQL A.B (+), SICS (*), Syxoo (+) The project leader is Mandriva (the company behind the Mandriva ex-Mandrakesoft Linux distribution in France). OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT The GGCC (ITEA) project aims to extend the free GNU Compiler Collection by globally processing several compilation units (e.g. work on a whole program or on a library) in order to customize and configure GCC to European software industry needs : for performance level or for better diagnosis. The GGCC (ITEA) contribution will be GPL licenced free software, and will be proposed to the FSF. The GGCC (ITEA) consortium is determined to work in close cooperation with the GCC community and the FSF. In an effort to empower the mainline GCC4 compiler from FSF (which focuses on code generation quality and compilation speed) with advanced compile-time techniques, the GGCC (ITEA) project aims at integrating into a GCC4 branch sophisticated program-wide compile-time analyses. As a result of that, it is expected that GGCC be more resource consuming (e.g., it could run 10 times slower than the GCC4 compiler). In return for that speed loss, more program bugs are expected to be pinpointed, and programmers will be able to state properties to be met in their code. Additionally, all the good characteristics of GGCC (high-quality code, number of available back-ends, etc.) are expected to be kept. The GGCC (ITEA) product will be hosted on Unix/Posix/GNU/Linux environments. The GGCC (ITEA) project aims to extend GCC through continuing research efforts, providing tools, interfaces and documentation which will enable new approaches to be developed around program-wide static analysis techniques. The static analysis of GGCC (ITEA) will work on the GIMPLE internal representations of GCC, hence be usable for all the current source languages and target systems available today in GCC. The static analysis techniques projected for GGCC (ITEA) will be means permitting: 1. Global program-wide optimisation (because the properties inferred at a given call site may be propagated to avoid useless computations in the program; for example if on a given call site and calling context the static analyser determined that a pointer is not null, pointing to a local variable which is positive, this information can be used to optimise further on, etc...). 2. Hazard detections, that are warnings (for the developer using GGCC (ITEA) compiler) about possible threats like: if a function f() was called by g() called by h(x) with x>0 then at line 345 of foo.c there is a possible zero-divide fault. The challenge is to reduce the number of false positive alarms (which are stricto sensu unavoidable). 3. Coding rule validation: A formalism will be defined by the GGCC consortium to express coding rules, and to use static analysis techniques to validate some of them. To permit development of static analysis techniques, some work on the GCC infrastructure (in particular, persistency of GIMPLE internal representation and extensions of it) is required. CONTACT DETAILS The main contact person is Arnaud Laprévote who can be contacted at the following e-mail address: arnaud.laprevote@mandriva.com <mailto:arnaud.laprevote@mandriva.com> The GGCC web site is: www.ggcc.info (will be operational very soon) Comments and remarks are welcome and can be sent to the following e-mail address: contact@ggcc.info <mailto:contact@ggcc.info> ################################################################ NB: all my other emails to this or other lists are only mine, and my own work on GCC is partly funded by this GGCC project (ITEA labelled) -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net aliases: basile<at>tunes<dot>org = bstarynk<at>nerim<dot>net 8, rue de la Faïencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
Posted Nov 1, 2006 16:26 UTC (Wed)
by ajross (guest, #4563)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Nov 1, 2006 16:49 UTC (Wed)
by epeeist (guest, #1743)
[Link]
Posted Nov 1, 2006 16:57 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
I wouldn't say it'll be stillborn. It's good to hear they say they'll work with the GCC community and FSF, but it would be better to also hear that from the GCC community and FSF.
Posted Nov 1, 2006 17:15 UTC (Wed)
by pflugstad (subscriber, #224)
[Link] (1 responses)
http://lwn.net/Articles/192529/
Posted Nov 1, 2006 17:47 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
A GCC dev has already contacted them about this: The contact seems friendly and it doesn't imply there is any reason why they wouldn't be compatible, just that consideration is needed.
Posted Nov 2, 2006 2:29 UTC (Thu)
by gdt (subscriber, #6284)
[Link]
In these pan-European mainly-government projects the media release is a public statement by the parties of their funding and staffing of the project. Overt mention of developer names would be unsuited to the purpose of such a statement of commitment (although if you knew the compiler development community you could probably read between the lines). That funding and staffing doesn't ensure success, nor does it ensure that the results will be rolled back into the mainline GCC code. You can see some efforts to coordinate for that integration to occur on the mailing list. Furthermore these sort of projects tend to be funded for precisely 30 months, so the quality of project management needs to be quite high to achieve a timely delivery. I wish the project all the best. There is a desperate need for a free compiler with GCC-compatibile syntax which generates code of sufficient quality for scientific computing.
Posted Nov 1, 2006 22:29 UTC (Wed)
by nathan (subscriber, #3559)
[Link]
Posted Nov 1, 2006 23:35 UTC (Wed)
by jbw (guest, #5689)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Nov 2, 2006 0:32 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Nov 2, 2006 0:43 UTC (Thu)
by jbw (guest, #5689)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Nov 2, 2006 5:12 UTC (Thu)
by larryr (guest, #4030)
[Link]
Me either. Fortunately receiving cookies has bugger all to do with trusting the web page owner.
Larry
Posted Nov 2, 2006 5:23 UTC (Thu)
by elanthis (guest, #6227)
[Link]
I'll never understand this mindset. I was fairly sure it was just the 45+ year old computer-illerate yester-year nerds who read an article in PC Magazine in the late 90's about cookies and tracking services who actually got freaked out by them these days.
Let's say somebody *gasp* tracks you with a cookie. What is that going to do, precisely? Are they going to use the information to peek a camera through your bedroom window? Start calling your mother telling her what pages you've been visiting? Have the government bash down your door because you visited a foreign website?
Let's get into the technical nonsense here, too. If a site sets a cookie, the only people that can read it is that site itself. So the only information the site is going to get about you is whether you ever came to the site before. Which can be used to... offer you related ads to articles you've viewed before. *gasp* Instead of being flooded by a bunch of irrelevant ads, now you'll be flooded by ads that might actually interest you. Even if you still ignore all the ads, what do you really have to complain about?
If you are worried about broader tracking, those services all operate by having various sites include images from their servers. You can use an extension like AdBlocker that will just cut out all those site's images (and hence, their cookies and all tracking capabilities) or disable loading of images from sites other than the originating site.
If big media or government really wanted to track you, cookies really don't do them much good anyhow. Not when they can just bribe or subpoena your ISP to hand your 'net usage information over.
Lastly, if you want to manage cookies, there are smarter ways to do it than just blindly refusing them. Change your browser settings to always clear them on shutdown. Or only clear the ones from non-whitelisted sites. Set the max lifetime for non-whitelisted sites to a smaller value. There are tons of things you can do, many of which can even be automated so you don't even have to click any Accept/Deny buttons anymore (especially if using an extensible browser like Firefox or a derivative) that will be just as effective as outright denying the cookies and won't keep locking you out of informational and/or useful sites.
You have to be either ignorant or abnormally paranoid to get pedantic over website cookies.
Posted Nov 2, 2006 9:54 UTC (Thu)
by rqosa (subscriber, #24136)
[Link]
> Doesn't _this_ page require
cookies?! It doesn't require cookies to read it; it requires
cookies to post comments, though. (Subscriber-only pages require cookies
to read, of course.)
Posted Nov 2, 2006 18:33 UTC (Thu)
by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688)
[Link]
It doesn't require cookies to read. I was able to disable cookies and read it without problem. I even had javascript disabled. I had no issues at all.
If you are that worried about cookies then you might want to install the CookieSafe extension for Firefox. https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2497/
When a "project" is announced in a press release that talks extensively about funding and sponsorship, but contains no names of any developers, I'm always suspicious. Especially when it is as ambitious as this seems to be. I give 70% odds this thing will be stillborn.
The GlobalGCC project launches
It does contain the names of a number of organisations that are involved.The GlobalGCC project launches
It is certainly strange that there are no endorsements from core GCC developers.The GlobalGCC project launches
Also, how does this fit with the LLVM/LTO stuff discussed in the comments here (future GCC direction article): The GlobalGCC project launches
The GlobalGCC project launches
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.devel/82868The GlobalGCC project launches
The goals appear to be similar to http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LinkTimeOptimization. GGCC announced themselves on the gcc list at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00676.htmlThe GlobalGCC project launches
The GlobalGCC web page seems to require cookies to read, and hence I
will not be reading it.
GlobalGCC web page seems to require cookies
Doesn't _this_ page require cookies?!GlobalGCC web page seems to require cookies
I have a business relationship (as a subscriber) with LWN and I think
LWN has earned my trust. I don't have time for thousands of random
web pages to learn whether I can trust the web pages' owners, so
requiring cookies or registration is a complete blocker for me.
GlobalGCC web page seems to require cookies
GlobalGCC web page seems to require cookies
don't have time for thousands of random web pages to learn whether I can trust the web pages' owners
Trust them? What do you need to trust them for?GlobalGCC web page seems to require cookies
GlobalGCC web page seems to require cookies
> The GlobalGCC web page seems to require cookies to read, and hence IGlobalGCC web page seems to require cookies
> will not be reading it.