[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LLVM
From: |
Helge Hess |
Subject: |
Re: LLVM |
Date: |
Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:16:25 +0100 |
On 01.03.2008, at 14:39, Andrew Pinski wrote:
If you knew the history of this code you would blame the same person
who is writing clang. I guess everyone forgets that the objc front
was original written by Steve.
I fail to see how this is relevant, it doesn't change the situation a
bit.
Fact is: hacking GCC is HARD (from plenty of angles!, not just the raw
coding of the patch). And whoever did the last iteration of cc1obj,
the important question is who is going to do the next one. Either
rewriting it from scratch or modifying the last one.
I completely believe David that fixing GCC would have been very hard
and that clang was easy. Don't you?
So far I didn't read the license of clang, but wouldn't it be possible
to license changes we do under GPL? (pretty much in the same line what
you fear Apple could do ;-)
Greets,
Helge
--
Helge Hess
http://www.helgehess.eu/
- Re: LLVM, Tim McIntosh, 2008/03/01
- Re: LLVM, address@hidden, 2008/03/01
- Re: LLVM, Helge Hess, 2008/03/01
- Re: LLVM, David Chisnall, 2008/03/01
- Re: LLVM, Andrew Pinski, 2008/03/01
- Re: LLVM,
Helge Hess <=
- Re: LLVM, David Chisnall, 2008/03/01
- Re: LLVM, David Chisnall, 2008/03/01
- Re: LLVM, Andrew Pinski, 2008/03/01
- Re: LLVM, Riccardo, 2008/03/01
- Re: LLVM, Riccardo, 2008/03/01
- Re: LLVM, Nicola Pero, 2008/03/01
- Re: LLVM, Nicola Pero, 2008/03/01
- Re: LLVM, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2008/03/03
- Re: LLVM, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller, 2008/03/03