[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: clang vs free software
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: clang vs free software |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:02:28 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
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. ]]]
>
> Fine, but what's the policy now regarding features that require an
> installed clang to work; can they be merged to Emacs proper or not?
>
> Emacs (and all GNU packages involving C code) should be designed to
> work best with GCC. There should be nothing to encourage users not to
> use our compiler.
Well, if we are talking about a generally desirable feature, the
question then is what needs to be done in order to have GCC fit the
problem space. Even with proprietary systems, the Emacs stance has been
to not support any Windows-only or MacOSX-only features, but to provide
general functionality when working under them. I think that this may
have been some incentive in the past for some Emacs developers to port
some system-specifically implemented features over in order to have them
generally available and thus accepted.
So the question is what the roadmap would be to have the software in
question work with GCC as the underlying technology. And if it turns
out (I have no idea whether it actually would) that the answer to that
would be "we did not want interfaces to do that in GCC since that would
have allowed using them with proprietary software as well" then we might
need to reevaluate our chosen set of compromises and policies and see
whether they need rebalancing in order to better help our cause.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, (continued)
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, Dmitry Gutov, 2014/01/19
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/01/19
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, John Yates, 2014/01/19
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/01/19
- 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, David Kastrup, 2014/01/20
- clang vs free software (was: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el), Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/20
- Re: clang vs free software, David Engster, 2014/01/20
- Re: clang vs free software, Richard Stallman, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: clang vs free software, Dmitry Gutov, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, Richard Stallman, 2014/01/22
- Re: clang vs free software, Dmitry Gutov, 2014/01/22
- Re: clang vs free software, John Yates, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, Rüdiger Sonderfeld, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, joakim, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, Rüdiger Sonderfeld, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, joakim, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, Rüdiger Sonderfeld, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2014/01/21