4 ms·

Many complaints revolve around GCC's monolithic architecture. See the clang comparison page (http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html http://clang.llvm.org/compari

by jomohke 17y ago

Many complaints revolve around GCC's monolithic architecture. See the clang comparison page (http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html) for a decent overview. clang should open the door for intelligent refactoring and analysis tools which aren't possible using the GCC codebase.

blasdel 17y ago
...and the fact that GCC's monolithic architecture was designed explicitly to make it difficult for separate processes to interact with it, access intermediary representations, or incrementally compile. Probably the best example of GPL wankery there is.
- paulgb 17y ago
  Really? Why would they do that?
  - etal 17y ago
    If the front end and back end can be separated cleanly, then a company could put their proprietary compiler back end behind the GCC front end without violating the GPL. Stallman has always worried about things like this; his objections to virtual machines have a similar basis.
    - Scriptor 17y ago
      That sounds like the same strategies used by proprietary software companies who go through all sorts of loops to discourage uses that don't ideologically fit with them. Almost like Free's version of DRM.
    - paulgb 17y ago
      Wow, and this is stated explicitly? Seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face. I guess ideology is more important than code quality to the FSF. They have every right to do it, of course, but as an outsider it seems counter-productive
      - blasdel 17y ago
        Witness the saga of ECGS -- people had to fork GCC because the FSF refused to take patches from the community. The FSF's concern was to have employees maintaining (and controlling the development of) the software and as far as they were concerned that was that.
- jmillikin 17y ago
  [citation needed]
  - hypermatt 17y ago
    I've heard this in quite a few places, RMS once quoted the reason we have an objective-c compiler is because people like apple to open source it to due to the architecture of gcc wouldn't let it be separate.
  - akkartik 17y ago
    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=542804 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=542804
kinetik 17y ago
GCC 4.5 adds support for plugins that allow this sort of thing. Mozilla have been making use of it for quite a while already: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Dehydra https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Dehydra

by jomohke 17y ago

blasdel 17y ago

...and the fact that GCC's monolithic architecture was designed explicitly to make it difficult for separate processes to interact with it, access intermediary representations, or incrementally compile. Probably the best example of GPL wankery there is.

paulgb 17y ago
Really? Why would they do that?
- etal 17y ago
  If the front end and back end can be separated cleanly, then a company could put their proprietary compiler back end behind the GCC front end without violating the GPL. Stallman has always worried about things like this; his objections to virtual machines have a similar basis.
  - Scriptor 17y ago
    That sounds like the same strategies used by proprietary software companies who go through all sorts of loops to discourage uses that don't ideologically fit with them. Almost like Free's version of DRM.
  - paulgb 17y ago
    Wow, and this is stated explicitly? Seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face. I guess ideology is more important than code quality to the FSF. They have every right to do it, of course, but as an outsider it seems counter-productive
    - blasdel 17y ago
      Witness the saga of ECGS -- people had to fork GCC because the FSF refused to take patches from the community. The FSF's concern was to have employees maintaining (and controlling the development of) the software and as far as they were concerned that was that.
jmillikin 17y ago
[citation needed]
- hypermatt 17y ago
  I've heard this in quite a few places, RMS once quoted the reason we have an objective-c compiler is because people like apple to open source it to due to the architecture of gcc wouldn't let it be separate.
- akkartik 17y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=542804 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=542804

kinetik 17y ago

GCC 4.5 adds support for plugins that allow this sort of thing. Mozilla have been making use of it for quite a while already: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Dehydra https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Dehydra