Slashdot Mirror
Plug-In Architecture On the Way For GCC
VonGuard writes "This year marks the 25th anniversary of the GNU Operating System. A major part of that system has always been the GNU Compiler Collection. This year, some of the earliest bits of GCC also turn 25, and yet some of the collection's most interesting years of growth may still be ahead. The GCC team announced today that the long-standing discussion over how to allow plug-ins to be written for GCC has been settled. The FSF and the GCC team have decided to apply the GPL to plug-ins. That means all that's left is to build a framework for plug-ins; no small task to be sure. But building this framework should make it easier for people to contribute to the GCC project, and some universities are already working on building windows into the compilation process, with the intent of releasing plug-ins."
why do people still try to attach GNU/ to Linux? It makes no sense.
Me? I run Gnu/KDE/Xorg/Gnome/vim/perl/rxvt/Fluxbox/Firefox/Java/Linux
Given that nobody mentioned Linux in either the summary or the article, one can only assume you're trolling.
The article claims that GNU has produced an operating system, and that GCC is somehow the cornerstone of that "operating system". I don't think the word means what GNU thinks it means. And Stallman's insistence on calling Linux "GNU/Linux" is part and parcel of that misconception.
E pluribus unum
Can someone explain what kind of plugins might be made? What extra functionality wold I want in a compiler?
... was a plugin for emacs.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Does this mean they want to force all plugins to use the GPL? How is that possible? I was under the impression that the GPL is purely a distribution license. It comes into force when you distribute software licensed under it, and requires you to distribute (or make available) source code and other things.
If I write a plugin and do not distribute it with GCC, what legal basis do they have to force me to GPL it? Nothing I distribute is copyrighted by the FSF, and so how can their distribution license apply to my code? I'm confused.
GNU has produced an operating system. It's nowhere near as advanced in functionality as Linux, but it exists, and GCC one of the largest parts of it.
It's true that Stallman is a self-important man who makes himself look arrogant by delineating that GNU tools are part of the operating system but not making the same claim for a whole slew of other important tools.
But however correct the OP's statement, I agree with the reply made to it that the fact it comes apropos of nothing indicates it's a troll.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
nuff said.. why do people still try to attach GNU/ to Linux? It makes no sense.
Oh god. Can't we stick to something non-controversial like GWB's legacy, gun control, abortion or the Middle East? Nothing good will come of this....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the GNU Operating System.
No, this year marks the 25th year of work on the GNU OS. There is still no GNU OS as such, and it's pretty obvious there never will be.
I'm not saying that there's nothing to show for all that work. The GNU libraries and many GNU utilities are key components in many projects, not the least of which is Linux. (<Sarcasm> Oh, excuse me, GNU/Linux.</Sarcasm> ) These are real achievements, and so is the introduction of a new collaborative model of joint software development.
But the original goal of GNU, to create a free alternative to Unix, has never been achieved. No big loss, there are other free Unix alternatives and even true Unixes for free. I just wish that GNU and its fanboys would stop and ask themselves why they never achieved their primary goal.
You can run a useful open source computer without xorg, you can run a useful computer without java, now that we have things like nexenta (ubuntu userland with opensolaris kernel) we can even go without linux -- but trying to run an open source based box without any of the software that gnu has touched is pretty hard~ (I think some of the BSDs do their own thing for the core, but most of the third-party software which gets installed on top has been touched by the hand of gnu somewhere along the lines)
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
That depends on your definition of "has produced". GNU certainly is actively developing an operating system, but I would say that an OS project that has managed to go 25 years without a stable kernel release cannot fairly be said to "have produced" an operating system.
All the exciting complier action going on now is with LLVM and Clang. It's incredibly clean and modern code. It has an free and open non-viral license.
The GNU crowd sees it as a massive threat to the stranglehold GCC has over open source compilers. This is nothing but a desperation move by GCC to try to fend off the massive migration to LLVM that is going on. The GNU crowd has been acting in ways that would put Microsoft to shame in their efforts to keep their stranglehold on compliers. All the way from the way GCC is coded to anonymous trolling of everything they see as a threat to non-GPL complier tech.
LLVM is going to be the one of and perhaps the single most important thing in the history of compliers. The academic world, business world, hardware manufactures are migrating to LLVM.
but most of the third-party software which gets installed on top has been touched by the hand of gnu somewhere along the lines
I delight in reminding your that gnus don't have hands, they have hoofs!
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
To quote the rationale document:
This is the kind of ideological arrogance that drives me up the wall with the FSF and GPL. There is this over riding presumption that they're right, and further more, anything contrary to their aims is "Bad for society". What childish bullshit.
It's not even as if they soften it by making it a question of belief. They could just as easily say "We believe developing non-free software is not good for society". The absolutism in their position reminds me of religious fundamentalism. Which also bugs the shit out of me.
why do people still try to attach GNU/ to Linux?
Ah, the great Gnu/Linux naming controversy. It's a long page for a short issue, but if you really want to kill a tree, try printing the talk page, instead.
You know that there's zealotry involved when the argument for justification of a single sentence is longer than the entire article.
That is clearly the easy part, should only take a few years, much shorter than the decision at least. I'll bang my head against the wall while I wait.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Well, the meaning of the word 'operating system' is subective of course. But the goal of GNU since the start was always to produce a UNIX-like operating system. And the UNIX operating system was always a lot more than just a kernel, it included tools, a shell, a compiler, etc. From the UNIX perspective, the GNU definition of 'operating system' makes perfect sense. Now if you're coming from the microcomputer persective, where an "operating system" was nothing more than the kernel and possibly a shell, you'd obviously be more inclined to simply label the kernel as an operating system. On the other hand, back when DOS was created, it barely would've been considered an operating system by the folks using UNIX and VMS. Indeed, DOS would barely qualify as an operating system today, especially considering what modern BIOSes can do.
More precisely:
No, the hurd is the (still incomplete) kernel, GNU is the (still incomplete) Operating System.
Spell check for identifiers might actually be useful. When you get an "undefined symbol 'plyaer'" error, it'd be nice if GCC could search the symbols in scope for with the shortest Levenshtein distance. The error message could look like this: "undefined symbol 'plyaer': did you mean 'player'?"
DWIM
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Or just do what the rest of us are doing, and hack on LLVM. It's BSDL, so you can license your plugins however you want, and it's very modular so it's easy to reuse parts of it. Oh, and it's actively backed by Apple, Adobe, Sun, Cray, and a few others including a number of universities.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
but trying to run an open source based box without any of the software that gnu has touched is pretty hard
I for one say "GNU/Linux" to distinguish an operating environment designed for a workstation or server from embedded Linux. It's possible to run a useful box, especially one handling embedded style workloads such as IP packet routing, with very little FSF-owned code. A "uClinux" environment might use uClibc or Newlib instead of glibc, uClibc++ instead of GNU libstdc++, and BusyBox instead of Bash and GNU Coreutils.
While I agree that "GNU" is not an operating system in any sense of the word (unless you include poorly-designed experimental attempts like HURD), it should be said that a compiler is an absolutely essential component to any operating system.
That popular operating systems ship without a compiler is only a sign of those systems being broken. If you aren't provided with a tool that lets you tell the system how to operate, you haven't got an operating system.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Mod me as a troll if you must but... People ought to read the link given by the parent. Wow.
Nice. You know, in a very funny way, the FSF and their jiahad against the evils of proprietary software are basically creating their own twisted form of DRM. Witness this brilliant idea:
Nice. The Linux kernel guys did this and look at the result--it is a bitch for hardware guys to write drivers for Linux. I'm sure deliberately altering the API with a script will work really well for the GCC guys! Makes me want to participate. Not! In truth, it makes me feel like I'm some kind of criminal--only guilty until proven innocent.
Sadly, the FSF did some very nice things, but I think they are becoming so extreme they are going to marginalize themselves and fade away. You know what the biggest hurdle for the BSD guys go separate themselve from GPL? The compiler. The compiler really is the last bit of power the FSF holds over the open source world as a whole. Pretty much every other bit of the toolchain has been replaced with a non-GPL lisence except a good compiler.
LLVM seems to be coming along nicely with major players backing it. I'd be pretty nervous if I was the FSF.
Poppycock. That's utter BS, and you know it. If Windows wasn't reliable enough, then it wouldn't be so popular, even for servers. I find Windows to be more reliable and stable than my Mac Book Pro running OS X 10.5.x, and that's based on UNIX. Stop the childish FUD.
It says on the LLVM website FAQ, "GCC is licensed under the GPL license. clang uses a BSD license, which allows it to be used by projects that do not themselves want to be GPL"
The LLVM site is registered in the name of Chris Lattner who works for Apple.
What the FAQ ought to have said is, "clang uses a BSD license, which allows it to be used by projects which wish to take the source code, close it, and profit off the backs of those who contributed without rewarding them."
Go ahead and hack on LLVM, but don't kid yourself that "the rest of us" are doing it too.
Exactly! HURD is the kernel, Emacs is the operating system.
"Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
Sean Callanan, a graduate student at Stony Brook University, has created a plugin system for GCC. It's been languishing in a branch for the past year or so.
Many people have wanted this branch to be merged from trunk, but a few people with licensing concerns have blocked it in the past.