11 ms·

RMS regrets not accepting LLVM into GCC during 2005 (2015)

17 points by lifthrasiir 6y ago

lifthrasiir 6y ago
Title adapted from the prior submission [1] ("RMS regrets not accepting LLVM into GCC during 2005") but reworded so that it's clear RMS didn't know its contents beforehand. (EDIT: My original title was "RMS regrets missing an email for the 2005 LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal (2015)", which was reworded by the moderator to match the earlier submission. I don't exactly like the rewording, but am fine with that.) The actual Integration Proposal [2] proposed an adapter from GIMPLE to LLVM BC so that GCC can make use of LLVM optimization passes without much hassle. Lattner (on behalf of Apple) was willing to assign the copyright of the entire LLVM once it became a preferred backend of GCC. Remember this was before GPLv3 (2007). It is not hard to imagine an alternative universe where this actually happened and GCC remains the dominant free/libre compiler. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9028738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9028738 [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html
- hyperman1 6y ago
  I understood Apple choose and funded LLVM explicitly because they wanted to decrease their dependency on GPL-licensed software. If LLVM moved under the FSF-flag, that funding would presumably dry up, or Apple would fork LLVM. I don't see the alternative universe happening. Besides, GCC fell a bit asleep once until EGCS kicked them awake, and again until LLVM appeared. A bit of competition seems healthy to keep everyone awake, and having both projects managed by the same organisation is a risk here. To be clear, GCC is and stays a great product and LLVM probably needs GCC as much as the other way around.
the-dude 6y ago
Is this part of the general PR-warfare on RMS?
- 1_player 6y ago
  RTFA. There's is nothing against RMS in this post. Please don't start a flamewar out of nothing.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    There is no FA. It is an email from 2015. I am just questioning if this submission here and now is part of the seemingly concerted effort to discredit RMS in the last few days.
    - arkitaip 6y ago
      This paranoia is getting embarrassing.
      - the-dude 6y ago
        Being paranoid does not mean they are not after you.
        kungito 6y ago
        I'm on my way to you. Stay right there
        the-dude 6y ago
        You the guy in the white van?
      - caspper69 6y ago
        I think it's fair. GCC made their decision many years ago. Even this email is 6 years old. Why post it now? Methinks because it fits a narrative that RMS is an ineffective leader that wouldn't know a good decision if it landed on his face.
        6y ago
bhaak 6y ago
I don't understand the wording. He says "when I saw your message. At that time all I could see was what was in your message. At the same time I sent another message to get a copy of https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html. That arrived subsequently." Doesn't that mean he received the original posting after all? > Oh well. If you ask me that shows poor leadership. Everybody does make mistakes but not reflecting on those mistakes and trying to do better will result in getting left behind.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- lifthrasiir 6y ago
  > Doesn't that mean he received the original posting after all? I assume that he received the original posting but wasn't aware of the contents ("I am stunned to see that we had this offer", note the use of tenses). FWIW he uses an email to fetch emails from the external inbox, so it seems likely that it just got shelved for a decade.
stephenr 6y ago
It’s almost as if making things harder for yourself and assuming the worst about others has consequences...
idclip 6y ago
Hurts to read.
oefrha 6y ago
> > "If people are seriously in favor of LLVM being a long-term part of GCC, I personally believe that the LLVM community would agree to assign the copyright of LLVM itself to the FSF and we can work through these details." > I am stunned to see that we had this offer. I'm also stunned to see this offer, in a not-so-delighted way. "If people are seriously in favor of LLVM being a long-term part of GCC" – of course that was a big if, but imagine it happened. Would all the languages that flourished around LLVM (e.g. HN darling Rust) happen in the alternative copylefted LLVM universe? Btw here's the actual proposal from Chris Lattner: https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html

17 points by lifthrasiir 6y ago

Title adapted from the prior submission [1] ("RMS regrets not accepting LLVM into GCC during 2005") but reworded so that it's clear RMS didn't know its contents beforehand. (EDIT: My original title was "RMS regrets missing an email for the 2005 LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal (2015)", which was reworded by the moderator to match the earlier submission. I don't exactly like the rewording, but am fine with that.) The actual Integration Proposal [2] proposed an adapter from GIMPLE to LLVM BC so that GCC can make use of LLVM optimization passes without much hassle. Lattner (on behalf of Apple) was willing to assign the copyright of the entire LLVM once it became a preferred backend of GCC. Remember this was before GPLv3 (2007). It is not hard to imagine an alternative universe where this actually happened and GCC remains the dominant free/libre compiler. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9028738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9028738 [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html

hyperman1 6y ago
I understood Apple choose and funded LLVM explicitly because they wanted to decrease their dependency on GPL-licensed software. If LLVM moved under the FSF-flag, that funding would presumably dry up, or Apple would fork LLVM. I don't see the alternative universe happening. Besides, GCC fell a bit asleep once until EGCS kicked them awake, and again until LLVM appeared. A bit of competition seems healthy to keep everyone awake, and having both projects managed by the same organisation is a risk here. To be clear, GCC is and stays a great product and LLVM probably needs GCC as much as the other way around.

the-dude 6y ago

Is this part of the general PR-warfare on RMS?

1_player 6y ago
RTFA. There's is nothing against RMS in this post. Please don't start a flamewar out of nothing.
- the-dude 6y ago
  There is no FA. It is an email from 2015. I am just questioning if this submission here and now is part of the seemingly concerted effort to discredit RMS in the last few days.
  - arkitaip 6y ago
    This paranoia is getting embarrassing.
    - the-dude 6y ago
      Being paranoid does not mean they are not after you.
      - kungito 6y ago
        I'm on my way to you. Stay right there
        the-dude 6y ago
        You the guy in the white van?
    - caspper69 6y ago
      I think it's fair. GCC made their decision many years ago. Even this email is 6 years old. Why post it now? Methinks because it fits a narrative that RMS is an ineffective leader that wouldn't know a good decision if it landed on his face.
      - 6y ago

bhaak 6y ago

I don't understand the wording. He says "when I saw your message. At that time all I could see was what was in your message. At the same time I sent another message to get a copy of https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html. That arrived subsequently." Doesn't that mean he received the original posting after all? > Oh well. If you ask me that shows poor leadership. Everybody does make mistakes but not reflecting on those mistakes and trying to do better will result in getting left behind.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lifthrasiir 6y ago
> Doesn't that mean he received the original posting after all? I assume that he received the original posting but wasn't aware of the contents ("I am stunned to see that we had this offer", note the use of tenses). FWIW he uses an email to fetch emails from the external inbox, so it seems likely that it just got shelved for a decade.

stephenr 6y ago

It’s almost as if making things harder for yourself and assuming the worst about others has consequences...

idclip 6y ago

Hurts to read.

oefrha 6y ago

> > "If people are seriously in favor of LLVM being a long-term part of GCC, I personally believe that the LLVM community would agree to assign the copyright of LLVM itself to the FSF and we can work through these details." > I am stunned to see that we had this offer. I'm also stunned to see this offer, in a not-so-delighted way. "If people are seriously in favor of LLVM being a long-term part of GCC" – of course that was a big if, but imagine it happened. Would all the languages that flourished around LLVM (e.g. HN darling Rust) happen in the alternative copylefted LLVM universe? Btw here's the actual proposal from Chris Lattner: https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html