3 ms·
The reason that gcc loses the original context is that rms wanted it that way. The "middle" of gcc is muddy expressly to make it difficult to "plug-in" a propri
by gonzo 14y ago
The reason that gcc loses the original context is that rms wanted it that way. The "middle" of gcc is muddy expressly to make it difficult to "plug-in" a proprietary optimizer.
The forced transition to GPL v3 isn't helping. OS X and Free SD are both largely transitioned to LLVM. Linux is a holdout, but how long will it be able to prop up gcc on its own?
- DannyBee 14y agoI wrote portions of this middle end. In fact, the "middle end" is the least muddy part of GCC at all. It's muddy mainly because GNU coding standards and portability rules prevented people from doing things right when they had the time to do it.
- gillianseed 14y ago'prop up'? I don't follow your reasoning, GCC does not exist for Linux. As for Linux relying on GCC, Linux relies on lots of GCC compiler extensions, many extensions which exists as a direct result of requests from kernel developers. You need to patch both Linux and Clang/LLVM to be able to even compile Linux with Clang/LLVM, and the result is unstable, so it's not as if Linux is a 'holdout' by any measure.