5 ms·

What do you mean about GCC shooting itself in the head? What do you mean about its license?

• mhh__ 4y ago
  GCC was for many years designed to be hard to work on/with => LLVM steals it's lunch GCC is under the GPLv3. This does not bother me so much combined with the former it's bad for getting corporations to spend money on you
  • astrange 4y ago
    Stallman hasn't been relevant to GCC in 10-15 years. If people aren't doing research projects with it, it's because they don't like the code style (which is still weird but not monolithic) or their funders aren't using it in production.
    • mhh__ 4y ago
      Ten years ago is exactly when LLVM came of age and GCC should've been adapting (which it did in some ways, but remained weird and Stallman-y)
    • kevingadd 4y ago
      https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html > This code is licensed under a BSD-like license [8], and LLVM itself will not initially be assigned to the FSF. 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. The leads of the project offered LLVM to the FSF and the offer was ignored because of Stallman's incompetent approach to email. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00594.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00... GCC's irrelevance and LLVM's dominance of the field are definitely his fault (even if there are other factors involved.)