2 ms·

It's not a conspiracy theory. Could you point to the 'debunking' because I don't see one that contains any actual evidence?. There are lots and lots of public m

It's not a conspiracy theory. Could you point to the 'debunking' because I don't see one that contains any actual evidence?. There are lots and lots of public mailing list posts by RMS and other GCC engineers explaining their reasoning for not making GCC more modular. The reasons were political. For example RMS vetoed the first attempts to add support for Java bytecode to GCC because he thought it would allow people to interact with GCC from other non-free software: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00895.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00895.html That same reasoning is why there is no GCC equivalent to LLVM IR or libclang or libtooling. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2012-12/msg00008.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2012-12/msg00... Part of the reason why clang/llvm weakens our commnity, compared with GCC, is that the clang front ends can feed their data to nonfree tools. There are some links in this wiki page that cover some of the arguments made against adding support for plugins to GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Plugins http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Plugins under 'Potential disadvantages of supporting a plugin architecture in GCC' Here is a post from a GCC maintainer explaining that RMS was personally blocking the inclusion of this much desired basic functionality for political reasons: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00193.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00193.html > Is there any progress in the gcc-plugin project ? Non-technical holdups. RMS is worried that this will make it too easy to integrate proprietary code directly with GCC.

lazyjones 13y ago
Are posts from 2001 and 2007 really relevant for this discussion? Look at this for example: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00182.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00182.html The "debunking" in this thread was the confirmation that plugins actually work now because the policies were relaxed in favor of them.
- anon1385 13y ago
  The Stallman post about LLVM being bad because it allows people to use it to build other tools was from 2012. Why did you ignore that? Plugins are only part of the story. Without stable intermedia representations there is still no GCC equivalent to libtooling or LLVM IR. That is by design, and remains true. No conspiracy theory. Just an ugly truth that some people want to deny.

lazyjones 13y ago

Are posts from 2001 and 2007 really relevant for this discussion? Look at this for example: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00182.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00182.html The "debunking" in this thread was the confirmation that plugins actually work now because the policies were relaxed in favor of them.

anon1385 13y ago
The Stallman post about LLVM being bad because it allows people to use it to build other tools was from 2012. Why did you ignore that? Plugins are only part of the story. Without stable intermedia representations there is still no GCC equivalent to libtooling or LLVM IR. That is by design, and remains true. No conspiracy theory. Just an ugly truth that some people want to deny.