Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC

Posted Jan 15, 2015 4:41 UTC (Thu) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
In reply to: Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC by aaron
Parent article: Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC

We always knew that the GPL was a temporary hack just to fight back and that BSD licences are actually more free; less restrictions. LLVM: Q.E.D.

Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC

Posted Jan 15, 2015 5:14 UTC (Thu) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

It all depends on who you think should have the freedom to inspect and modify software. If you think only developers should, BSD is great. If think everyone should, the GPL is great. The global software freedom situation has gotten both better and much worse over the years, some say we are in the dark ages of software freedom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2LNcaEEhDU
http://upsilon.cc/~zack/talks/2014/20140823-dc14-darkages...

Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC

Posted Jan 15, 2015 10:54 UTC (Thu) by etienne (guest, #25256) [Link] (4 responses)

> BSD licences are actually more free; less restrictions. LLVM: Q.E.D.

Yes, buggy proprietary LLVM backend (on OpenCl video cards) are a real improvement to the software countryside... they force you to remember the time where C compilers were buggy and proprietary, with no support even if you paid for support.

Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC

Posted Jan 15, 2015 19:57 UTC (Thu) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link] (3 responses)

> Yes, buggy proprietary LLVM backend (on OpenCl video cards) are a real improvement to the software countryside...

Yes it is, when the status quo for a tolerably fast and standards-conformant OpenGL/CL stack is called "nvidia.ko" and it's apparent nobody else is even trying.

Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC

Posted Jan 16, 2015 20:39 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (2 responses)

Nvidia isn't standards conforming (they allow all sorts of things the spec says shouldn't be possible). They also care very little about OpenCL.

Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC

Posted Jan 19, 2015 19:05 UTC (Mon) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link] (1 responses)

My point being the alternative in the GNU/Free monoculture etienne is pining for is non-existent.

Acting *offended* that LLVM exists and allows FOSS to work for its users is a repulsive attitude.

Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC

Posted Jan 20, 2015 11:13 UTC (Tue) by etienne (guest, #25256) [Link]

> My point being the alternative in the GNU/Free monoculture etienne is pining for is non-existent.

I was not talking about Nvidia but Ati.
My point was you look at their very powerful hardware, you say I want to play with that.
You look at how to program the hardware, you do not see a locked-down proprietary language but something reasonably described (OpenCl), you begin to look at the different hardware configurations you can buy.
You look at the compiler, you see LLVM, you say great! an open source compiler: I shall not have too many problems, and even if I have I will be able to fix them. You buy the hardware you have selected.

Then you realize, when you finally achieve to configure the hardware to work as a basic video card on your distribution (did take a long time, had to disable package management and other dirty things), that the version of LLVM used is completely out of date, that most of the toolchain is completely proprietary and no part can be re-generated, then you hit your first compiler bug (usually it locks down the PCIe bus so forces a hardware reboot with unclean filesystems because the disks are on PCIe Sata interface).

Then you understand that they declared their compiler BugFree (TM), and that they will not consider a bug if you cannot reproduce it on the latest video game (which do not seem to use OpenCl but the "intermediate" representation directly).

> Acting *offended* that LLVM exists and allows FOSS to work for its users is a repulsive attitude.

*offended* is a big word, that is not the first time I spent money on hardware I cannot really use, and I have seen a lot of broken compilers where the supplier denies officially that a bug may exists.

I am also *not saying* LLVM is buggy, I am saying the version they used has been so modified it now has a bug that bite me hard - I can't do anything about it.

I think LLVM gets bad advertisement with that story, final user should really understand the difference of:
- compiler based on "Open Source" software
- compiler itself "Open Source"
- compiler itself "Open Source" and can be fixed (regenerated) locally
- compiler GPL

Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC

Posted Jan 16, 2015 12:02 UTC (Fri) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] (3 responses)

I take the totally agnostic view that the various licensing regimes exist to support the various motives people have for coding.

What matters is not whether license A is "more gooder" than license B.

Rather, that people retain liberty to choose among them, as preserved by the legal system.

Licensing is the uber-bikeshed argument: crucial to the passionate; ho-hum to the onlookers.

Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC

Posted Jan 16, 2015 16:03 UTC (Fri) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (1 responses)

For your next tea/coffee break at work, I recommend the machine which is located in the middle of your legal department.

Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC

Posted Jan 17, 2015 2:30 UTC (Sat) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

They have one? I'd always understood legal to take refreshment from the neck. . .

Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC

Posted Jan 23, 2015 12:40 UTC (Fri) by blujay (guest, #39961) [Link]

And like politics, everyone is affected by it, even the onlookers. Therefore everyone has an interest in it, even if they have no interest in it. It's a bikeshed we all live in, even if we don't realize it.