3 ms·

Embedded compiler vendors and UNIXes want a possibly slightly patched C or C++ compiler, maybe with an extra back-end bolted on. I'm talking about use-cases lik

by mort96 2y ago

Embedded compiler vendors and UNIXes want a possibly slightly patched C or C++ compiler, maybe with an extra back-end bolted on. I'm talking about use-cases like Rust and Zig and Swift, projects which want a solid optimizing back-end but their own front-end and tooling.

pjmlp 2y ago
And FOSS folks most likely would like to enjoy those patches as well on their installations.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  And they do! You can choose not to contribute your changes back to permissively-licensed software, but in actual practice most people do contribute them. It's not like the Rust compiler is proprietary software with their own closed-source fork of LLVM...
  - trelane 2y ago
    > You can choose not to contribute your changes back to permissively-licensed software, but in actual practice most people do contribute them. They contribute some things, sure. But the also don't contribute some things. It is hard to know how much because it's kept secret from all of us, even their own customers. > "It's not like the Rust compiler is proprietary software with their own closed-source fork of LLVM..." Rust no, hut there are a lot of proprietary, semi-incompatible proprietary forks out there.
- mort96 2y ago
  I haven't advocated for re-licensing GCC to be permissively licensed. And patching GCC is necessarily going to be much easier for vendors than to build a new C front-end which generates GCC IR. So I'm not sure what difference you think what I'm proposing would make with regard to your concerns.
vbezhenar 2y ago
gccrs is a rust implementation for gcc. Just because Rust developers don't want their users to be fully free doesn't mean there are any problems with gcc. And clang is developed by Apple which is a huge warning sign by itself.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  Rust developers don't "not want their users to be fully free", they disagree with you on which license is best. Don't deliberately phrase people's motivations in an uncharitable way, it's obnoxious as hell.
- mort96 2y ago
  And gccrs is not really very widely used and is not the "official" Rust compiler. The Rust project chose to base their compiler on LLVM, for good technical reasons. That's bad news for the GCC project.
  - tmiku 2y ago
    I thought that most FOSS projects took multiple compiler implementations as a sign of a healthy language environment, without much prestige associated with being the "premier" compiler and instead having more of an it-takes-a-village attitude. Granted, I'm mostly extrapolating from Go and Python here - is it a sharper divide in the Rust community?
    - mort96 2y ago
      No, and I think the gccrs project is great and a sign that the language is maturing. I'm just saying that LLVM was chosen instead of GCC to build the official Rust compiler for very good technical reasons, and that ought to worry GCC.
- viraptor 2y ago
  It's an early implementation of a part of rust. It's not even close to being able to use as the daily compiler.
- 2y ago

by mort96 2y ago

pjmlp 2y ago

And FOSS folks most likely would like to enjoy those patches as well on their installations.

School-Cotton 2y ago
And they do! You can choose not to contribute your changes back to permissively-licensed software, but in actual practice most people do contribute them. It's not like the Rust compiler is proprietary software with their own closed-source fork of LLVM...
- trelane 2y ago
  > You can choose not to contribute your changes back to permissively-licensed software, but in actual practice most people do contribute them. They contribute some things, sure. But the also don't contribute some things. It is hard to know how much because it's kept secret from all of us, even their own customers. > "It's not like the Rust compiler is proprietary software with their own closed-source fork of LLVM..." Rust no, hut there are a lot of proprietary, semi-incompatible proprietary forks out there.
mort96 2y ago
I haven't advocated for re-licensing GCC to be permissively licensed. And patching GCC is necessarily going to be much easier for vendors than to build a new C front-end which generates GCC IR. So I'm not sure what difference you think what I'm proposing would make with regard to your concerns.

vbezhenar 2y ago

gccrs is a rust implementation for gcc. Just because Rust developers don't want their users to be fully free doesn't mean there are any problems with gcc. And clang is developed by Apple which is a huge warning sign by itself.

bigstrat2003 2y ago
Rust developers don't "not want their users to be fully free", they disagree with you on which license is best. Don't deliberately phrase people's motivations in an uncharitable way, it's obnoxious as hell.
mort96 2y ago
And gccrs is not really very widely used and is not the "official" Rust compiler. The Rust project chose to base their compiler on LLVM, for good technical reasons. That's bad news for the GCC project.
- tmiku 2y ago
  I thought that most FOSS projects took multiple compiler implementations as a sign of a healthy language environment, without much prestige associated with being the "premier" compiler and instead having more of an it-takes-a-village attitude. Granted, I'm mostly extrapolating from Go and Python here - is it a sharper divide in the Rust community?
  - mort96 2y ago
    No, and I think the gccrs project is great and a sign that the language is maturing. I'm just saying that LLVM was chosen instead of GCC to build the official Rust compiler for very good technical reasons, and that ought to worry GCC.
viraptor 2y ago
It's an early implementation of a part of rust. It's not even close to being able to use as the daily compiler.
2y ago