3 ms·
Oh, it goes deeper than that. One of the many reasons why LLVM is taking off is because it provides an API that lets programs hook into the compiler, which mea
by amyjess 12y ago
Oh, it goes deeper than that.
One of the many reasons why LLVM is taking off is because it provides an API that lets programs hook into the compiler, which means IDEs can deeply integrate with the compiler. For example, IDEs can highlight errors based on where the compiler says errors are instead of having to run its own parser for the language.
Why doesn't gcc have this feature?
Well, it was proposed, but it was shot down because RMS doesn't want proprietary tools to be able to hook into gcc. In fact, gcc was deliberately designed as a monolithic application with no API specifically to keep third-party tools away from it.
So yet another reason why people are moving away from gcc is because llvm/clang enables you to have better development tools. GNU is being killed by its own religion.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Spivak 12y agoSo why not just make that part of the license? Just require any tool that uses the GCC API, even transitively, to be licensed under something GPL compatible. I know there would probably be a huge number of loopholes to plug but this is really something that should be fixed outside of the actual code.
- cozzyd 12y agoI was thinking the same thing. Change the GCC license to preclude such use by introducing a variant of the GPL for compilers and similar tools.
- jeremysalwen 12y agoLinked from the original article is another piece by the author describing precisely such a license: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/01/27/gcc-exception.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/01/27/gcc-exception.html . I'm rather surprised I haven't heard of this before.
- belorn 12y agoLikely because it would be incompatible with GPL. Switching GCC's license to a GPL incompatible license is not a move I think FSF are willing to do.