211–220 of 259 posts
How diverse are the CPU manufacturers for android phones? The major concern when it comes to Clang is that developers will need to buy proprietary plugins to compile open source code that depend on proprietary features, or to have application run in native speed.
The NCSA license explicitly allows sublicensing, so both the GNU project and Microsoft can create derivatives under free and proprietary licenses respectively, for example.
[I am not a lawyer, but this is the reasoning of the accepted answer to a stackexchange question applied to the NCSA license: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/105912/can-yo...]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>By pretty close you mean no where near a usable system then you'd be correct. If you're not a hardware person, as I'm not, I don't think I could go from blank fpga and parts to a working laptop with a keyboard, trackpoint, and lcd screen in any reasonable amount of time, nor with any certainty that it would work and not be error-prone. The exact same argument can be made about the operating system.
I can and have patched bugs in my operating system. I have no clue where I'd even start to patch a bug in my hardware.
At least on windows, it is FOSS with a complete SDK for Win64.
Clang requires the Windows/Platform SDK. You cannot really use it without it. You cannot create a distribution without it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It, sadly, goes deeper than that, past architecture to philosophy. LLVM is designed to be modularized and embedded in other binaries and toolchains, which makes it easier to build extensions and tooling around it. In addition to having a mountain of legacy code, gcc's project steering is philosophically opposed to allowing non-free (as in GPL) plugins [ https://lwn.net/Articles/582242/ ]. Because of this, developers…
> gcc's project steering is philosophically opposed to allowing non-free (as in GPL) plugins I think that's the right philosophy. Why shouldn't you be contributing your plugin if you derive value from it, so that other people can derive value from it just as you did with GCC (if you distribute it that is - if you wrote it inhouse for internal use, then it doesn't matter at all!). It's not like the code generated by G…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> God saves a puppy anytime someone filed a compiler bug with a trivial test case that demonstrates the problem. The current (r10e) shipping version of clang cannot return 128bit floats from a function. #include int main(int c, char **v) { std::stringstream("1.5"); double x; s >> x; return x == 1.5 ? 0 : 1; } EDIT: You don't need "long double" in the above. double (or float) will show the problem. The standard librar…
Ran the program with some slight modifications and couldn't reproduce it #include #include int main(int c, char **v) { std::stringstream s("1.5"); double x; s >> x; return x == 1.5 ? 0 : 1; } Apple LLVM version 7.0.2 (clang-700.1.81) Target: x86_64-apple-darwin15.2.0 Thread model: posix
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel like you're missing the point of the GNU GPL. The original idea behind the FSFs idea of open source was an ecosystem where every new development resulted in more open and free code. First of all, "FSF's idea of open source"? They'd rather vigorously object to that phrasing. :) But no, that was exactly my point: I'd argue that intentionally choosing to not allow the development of a library version of GCC, ev…
RMS -- and perhaps the FSF more generally -- seems more concerned with preventing non-Free software, with creating Free Software as a means to that end, than increasing the volume of Free Software. To RMS, non-Free software isn't just worse than Free software, its a net harm to society such that it's better to have no software than to have non-Free software. Its even often (apparently, to RMS) better to have no addit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the argument above that he was wrong? He may have been morally right that free software is an inherent good over proprietary software, but that's sort of a given for this discussion. He was tactically wrong in taking an expansive view of both what free software licenses should enforce and what fell within their realm of enforcement. He was hoping that GCC would be so much better than the competition that people…
The dream of a GPL world only ever worked if the entire ecosystem was GPL and it was possible to derive a living from ecosystem. The revolution never happened. One could even argue that RMS' more civilized age never really existed outside of the MIT AI lab so it was doomed from the beginning. Due to his stubbornness in not accepting the realpolitik the savannah has now become a reservation that is shrinking daily as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they in fact talk about freedom with using the word on their home page. That is exactly my point.
rms' statement was > The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours because they do not share our values and goals. They object to the measures we have taken to defend freedom because they see the inconvenience of them and do not recognize (or don't care about) the need for them. I would guess they describe their work as "open source" and do not talk about freedom. If you're objecting to that, we…
OSS programmers who disagree with him about license must not talk or (care) about freedom? Really? Jesus that's shitty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
rms' statement was > The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours because they do not share our values and goals. They object to the measures we have taken to defend freedom because they see the inconvenience of them and do not recognize (or don't care about) the need for them. I would guess they describe their work as "open source" and do not talk about freedom. If you're objecting to that, we…
RMS is wrong on this issue, and wrong in a very insulting way. OSS programmers who disagree with him about license must not talk or (care) about freedom? Really? Jesus that's shitty.