3 ms·
>> I'm all for Intel helping improve LLVM, but the technical arguments for maintaining a separate commercial version don't convince me at all. This is exactly
by phkahler 5y ago
>> I'm all for Intel helping improve LLVM, but the technical arguments for maintaining a separate commercial version don't convince me at all.
This is exactly why GCC is GPL and why RMS didn't want to make it more modular. Taken to the extreme we could end up with proprietary hardware that requires a proprietary (closed) compiler even though it's built on open source. Going back to "trusting trust" things might not be so good, and we know Intel is happy to build untrustworthy chips.
- DSingularity 5y agoWhat does “trusting trust” have to do with this? That problem is a bootstrapping problem when trying to establish a trusted base. Simple summary is: if the first compiler was backdoored to detect when it is compiling other versions of itself and then inserting the same backdoor in the assembly of the target then how can you trust anything compiled by it?
- phkahler 5y agoYou're right, the "trusting trust" compiler hack is way more complicated.