Plug-In Architecture On the Way For GCC 342
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."
Re:It's Linux, NOT GNU/Linux!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that nobody mentioned Linux in either the summary or the article, one can only assume you're trolling.
Re:It's Linux, NOT GNU/Linux!! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's Linux, NOT GNU/Linux!! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's Linux, NOT GNU/Linux!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's Linux, NOT GNU/Linux!! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Only in as much as the original poster is a troll, then. The plugin system for GCC could have been discussed in a purely neutral manner if the article hadn't been submitted with the business about GCC being part of an operating system. GCC may be what compiled the operating system, or what developers use to develop for the operating system... but it's not part of an operating system. The fact that we're even discussing this implies the submitter's comments were trollish, IMHO.
If the article was supposed to be about the plugin system, maybe the submission should have led with that.
Arrogance (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Nothing More Than GNU/Panic Over LLVM/Clang (Score:1, Insightful)
hehe, sure they are.
Re:25 years of .... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Having tried to get involved a few years back, I think I know why. While I don't deny the extree skill of some of the gnu programmers, GCC, Emacs and Gnuplot are ample evidence of this, they lack, or seemed to lack then, any form of cohesive organisation.
There was a distinct impression that if you didn't code in C, you weren't good enough, and that little use should be made of widely available, and equally free technology, because it wasn't 'hard core' enough, or so it seemed. There certainly was no logical reason for it. They spent, in my opinion, far too much time trying to write clever code, and not enough time trying to make things easily accessible for prospective new members. Since those new members would probably bring in new ideas and fresh impetus, I'd have thought this was a priority. Attracting some managers would have helped.
Their mailing list for Hurd showed their problem quite well. In spite of there being plenty of solutions available for spam filtering, they used nothing, which took me somewhat by surprise. This meant I ended up having to sift through literally hundreds of viagra and porn emails each week to try and follow something.
I asked someone else about it, and he had a script he ran himself to clear the spam. Very clever, very geeky, but very useless for those who think they shouldn't have to do that themselves to make such a mailing list usable.
I gave up after a couple of months, with a much better idea why we never got Hurd.
Re:It's Linux, NOT GNU/Linux!! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Essential plugin (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:25 years of .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? You're saying GNU didn't have enough resources? Then how did Linux ever achieve critical mass? Which certainly doesn't have much more in the way of resources, given that their code bases overlap so much.
The difference between GNU and Linux is not resources. The difference is the people running the show. RMS is on a holy mission; Linus just wants to get the job done.
Re:25 years of .... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because it takes thousands of people to make an OS.
AST debunked that years ago [cs.vu.nl]. And now that minix is available under a free license there is nothing to stop the FSF calling it the GNU OS.
Re:GPL to plugins? (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the GPL, BSD-like-licensed code that is distributed in binary form must be accompanied by the full corresponding source code or an offer to provide the source code valid for 5 years (or whatever). That's what the BSD nerds are complaining about.
There's no case law that even suggests that copying an API can result in a copyright infringement. That's SCO all over again.
Re:GPL to plugins? (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, the fact that libedit has the same binary interface as libreadline and perhaps does something that libreadline does (I haven't tried it) doesn't make it 100% clear that libedit is not derivative of libreadline
doesn't that make wine a derivative of windows
Re:It's Linux, NOT GNU/Linux!! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Arrogance (Score:2, Insightful)
Bill Gates and RMS are running on the same philosophy. They both want people roped into their own little philosophy and worldview: Bill Gates wants everyone running on his proprietary little OS coded in .NET while RMS wants everyone using his license which he controls while coding in straight C. The only difference is that Bill Gates wants to promote slavery to his OS while RMS wants Freedom to be the ONLY way. Isn't that how America has been pushing democracy in the middle east?
Y'know, at least the rationale for Linux kernel tainting makes sense pragmatically - it keeps people with modules that Linus can't fix from sending bug reports relating to those broken proprietary modules.
Re:GPL to plugins? (Score:3, Insightful)
If in the real world they distribute a plugin which calls an api entrypoint in the gcc plugin framework, how would they tell it not being a derivative work?
Because work A being a "derivative work" of work B is defined to mean that A includes material from B. Program C calling a function in program D does not mean that C includes part of D, so it does not make C a "derivative work" of D.
Whether A is a "derivative work" of B from the perspective of copyright, and whether it is derived from B from the perspective of scientific/academic attribution are separate questions.
Re:GPL to plugins? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How spell check could work in a C compiler (Score:3, Insightful)
that sames more appropriate for an IDE. if you have the spell check in the IDE, you can easily identify and immediately fix typos as you code. waiting for the compiler to spell check your code is like building a spell-checker into your printer driver or PostScript interpreter.
since most modern IDEs already feature syntax highlighting, which typically comes with function lists, symbol databases, and a live parser, it would just be a simple matter of integrating an additional user dictionary to the parser so that misspelled variables, comments, literals/output messages, etc. get highlighted.
the parser could even make sure that your variables are named consistently according to naming conventions you specify. so if you have a long named strAge or you forget to use CamelCase, or use it incorrectly (e.g. fetchNExt() instead of fetchNext()), on a function or variable, the parser should be able to point that out to you. that would be more useful than getting warnings from the compiler about lexical code issues.
Re:GPL to plugins? (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution for the problem is very simple, if you don't to release your software as GPL code - don't use GPL code as a base for your software.
Thus if you don't want to write GPL code, don't write a plugin to GCC. Instead write some other software that has nothing to do with GCC.
If you want to write software and base it on GPL code, the least you can do is to return the favor and also release your own code as GPL code.
The GNU project is based on the old tradition that if you are nice to others so will hopefully they be nice to you too.
Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice. The Linux kernel guys did this and look at the result--it is a bitch for hardware guys to write drivers for Linux
Bullshit. The result is that it's a bitch for proprietary guys to write binary only drivers for linux.
And you know - why should the GCC & Linux projects make things easy for the proprietary guys? It's not like the proprietary guys go out of their way to make life easier for OSS.
Re:Nice (Score:1, Insightful)
"I'd be pretty nervous if I was the FSF."
You wish.
What you don't like is that you can't take the work of people who have contributed to a GPL project, close source it,pretend that it's your own work, and profit off the backs of the real developers.
The GPL prevents dinosaurs like your good self from profiting off the backs of others.
If you want a closed source application, either buy one, or write it yourself. Either way you'll end up playing all by yourself.
Shared source is here to stay.
Re:That means all that's left is to build a framew (Score:1, Insightful)
Which demonstrates just how much Sun loved the GPL in the first place.
Sun, like one or two other corporations, were forced crying and kicking down the open source path because their users were installing and compiling GPL'd software on Sun systems instead of buying Sun's vastly over priced versions. If they hadn't embraced it, the migration of their users to Linux would have become a stampede.
LLVM is being supported by Sun because they see an opportunity to reverse software history. If LLVM ( which is not covered by the GPL ) replaced GCC - they think - GCC would die off, and then they will be able to close source the project and return to happy land where they can charge the earth for their product.
It ain't gonna happen.
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Because biting the hand that feeds you have never been a good strategy. There's not enough open hardware - free operating systems are still dependent on the goodwill of proprietary vendors to be able to support mainstream hardware with anywhere near the same features and performance as users of proprietary OS take for granted.
Granted, this may well change soon, but until then making it hard for hardware developers to provide good Linux drivers is just making things harder for Linux users who have no interest in being dragged into your religious wars.
Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Not the developers; the users of GCC benefit (are "fed") by the availability of plugins, proprietary or no. I assume that most developers of GCC are also users, so this benefits the developers as well.
Also, I would hope that the developers of a popular software package would see fit to act in the best interests of their users, rather than fight stupid religious wars over which of proprietary/open is better. Fact is we'll always have both kinds of code, so we should try to get along with each other rather than fight pointlessly.
Unfortunately many free software advocates are more than happy to fight these wars, because they put ideology above the goal of creating great software, making them no better than the greedy corporations they so despise.
Re:Operating System? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly! HURD is the kernel, Emacs is the operating system.
Re:GPL to plugins? (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is bad because...
Because it violates freedoms 0 to 3? The whole reason for GNU's existence?