[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: clang vs free software
From: |
Rüdiger Sonderfeld |
Subject: |
Re: clang vs free software |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:35:02 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/4.11.3 (Linux/3.11.0-14-generic; KDE/4.11.3; x86_64; ; ) |
On Thursday 23 January 2014 12:01:39 David Kastrup wrote:
> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> >
> > There exist now various packages integrating emacs will elements of
> > clang.
> >
> > These packages are not supporting clang as alternative compiler.
> > Rather
> >
> > by exploiting clang interfaces that have no gcc analog they offer
> > exciting
> > IDE-like features.
> >
> > They nonetheless encourage people to switch from GCC to Clang. The
> > features may be useful but this way of providing them hurts our cause.
>
> Which brings us back to the question: what would be required to provide
> them via GCC or other GNU software? If nobody bothers with even
> considering the question, it would appear that it is not all that
> important...
AFAIK there have been several attempts to make the AST or GCC frontend more
easily available (e.g., gcc-xml) and there have been several discussions on
the GCC mailing lists about this. But all attempts were blocked by the fear
that this might be abused by non-free software.
I personally think it was the wrong decision because it did hurt free software
IDEs and tools, which would have benefited a lot from having a C++ frontend
easily available. Non-free software developers usually could afford non-free
frontends such as EDG.
Now many free software IDEs and tools seem to start using or are developed
around using libclang. Which will promote clang over GCC in the long run. I
hope that the FSF and GCC developers change their position on this issue. The
risk that non-free software might abuse such a move seems to have been
significantly reduced due to libclang's license being friendly to non-free
software.
Regards,
Rüdiger
- Re: clang vs free software, (continued)
- Re: clang vs free software, Lennart Borgman, 2014/01/26
- Re: clang vs free software, David Kastrup, 2014/01/26
- Re: clang vs free software, Helmut Eller, 2014/01/26
- Re: clang vs free software, David Kastrup, 2014/01/26
- Re: clang vs free software, Helmut Eller, 2014/01/26
- Re: clang vs free software, David Kastrup, 2014/01/26
- Re: clang vs free software, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/26
- Re: clang vs free software, Lennart Borgman, 2014/01/26
- Re: clang vs free software, David Kastrup, 2014/01/26
- Re: clang vs free software, Lennart Borgman, 2014/01/26
- Re: clang vs free software,
Rüdiger Sonderfeld <=
- Re: clang vs free software, David Engster, 2014/01/23
- Re: clang vs free software, unic0rn, 2014/01/21
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/01/20
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, Óscar Fuentes, 2014/01/19
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, John Yates, 2014/01/20
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, David Kastrup, 2014/01/20
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, John Yates, 2014/01/20
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/19
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, Dmitry Gutov, 2014/01/19
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/19