×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

GCC 4.9 Coming With Big New Features

timothy posted about a year ago | from the holy-linkage-batman dept.

Programming 181

jones_supa writes "When GCC 4.9 is released in 2014 it will be coming in hot on new features with a large assortment of improvements and new functionality for the open-source compiler. Phoronix provides a recap of some of the really great features of this next major compiler release from the Free Software Foundation. For a quick list: OpenMP 4.0, Intel Cilk Plus multi-threading support, Intel Bay Trail and Silvermont support, NDS32 port, Undefined Behavior Sanitizer, Address Sanitizer, ADA and Fortran updates, improved C11 / C++11 / C++14, better x86 intrinsics, refined diagnostics output. Bubbling under are still: Bulldozer 4 / Excavator support, OpenACC, JIT compiler, disabling Java by default."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frist (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453117)

finally

Re:frist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453155)

You gonna put this on your résumé?

Re:frist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453483)

It is his resumé.

A big improvement indeed (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453157)

New in this release: lots of stuff most people don't care about, some minor improvements and oh yeah we gave up on Java.

Re:A big improvement indeed (1)

symes (835608) | about a year ago | (#45453161)

I have to agree - I've been trying to find out more on the multi-threading support, something that is strangely lacking detail but you would imagine could be quite popular

Re:A big improvement indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453311)

What exactly you needed to find out? it supports perfectly well multithreading for output programs and for itself.
What is more interesting - MP, GPGPU technology...

Re:A big improvement indeed (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45453191)

we gave up on Java.

That's not news?

Re:A big improvement indeed (4, Insightful)

cduffy (652) | about a year ago | (#45453279)

You only don't care about sanitizing standard-undefined behavior if you don't care about bugs.

That one's a Really, Really Big Deal.

Re:A big improvement indeed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453425)

Fuck worrying about bugs! JavaScript and nodejs all day baby!

Re:A big improvement indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453629)

You only care about it if you have written code that is walks slap bang into undefined behavior. The compiler is the least of your problems.

Re:A big improvement indeed (5, Insightful)

Hizonner (38491) | about a year ago | (#45453827)

I assume you can list all the undefined behaviors in the C standard off the top of your head, yes? And you've never actually written a line of code with an error in it, right?

I've spent a lot of time cleaning up after security bugs written by people with that attitude. None of them could make mistakes either. Maybe you guys should form a club, so the rest of us can identify the special beings walking among us.

Re:A big improvement indeed (1)

turgid (580780) | about a year ago | (#45453857)

+1 Hear, hear.

Re:A big improvement indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453913)

You only care about it if you have written code that is walks slap bang into undefined behavior.

Which happens when you don't care about it.

Re:A big improvement indeed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454007)

Did you know that the following is now undefined behaviors thanks to GCC's adherence to the strict aliasing rule?

void *get_in_addr( struct sockaddr *sa ) {
    if (sa->sa_family == AF_INET)
        return &(((struct sockaddr_in*)sa)->sin_addr);
    else
        return &(((struct sockaddr_in6*)sa)->sin6_addr);
}

So yeah. Suck on it.

Re:A big improvement indeed (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about a year ago | (#45454307)

That whole sockaddr design sucks. It's about time somebody (or some compiler) complained about it.

Re:A big improvement indeed (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about a year ago | (#45454903)

Agreed. It's not the 1970s any more. We can adopt a design that reflects this fact.

Re:A big improvement indeed (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#45454587)

Did you know that the following is now undefined behaviors thanks to GCC's adherence to the strict aliasing rule?

Surely that depends on the design of sockaddr. If the first member is a union of sockaddr_in and sockaddr_in6, then I think it will work. You can certainly cast a pointer to a struct to a pointer to the first member. And, you can certainly cast a pointer to a union to a pointer to any member. No idea if you can do both in one operation.

Either way the fact that this is not obvious does indeed illustrate the utility of an undefined behaviour sanitizer. I for one welcome it.

Re:A big improvement indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454593)

Really? A lot off applications will break if that kind of code does not compile correctly. Perhaps we have to wait with popcorns ready until mr Torvalds meets this feature;)

Re:A big improvement indeed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454781)

It already was undefined behaviour since the standard introduced the strict aliasing rule. It's just that compilers didn't take advantage of it. Anyway, I doubt that gcc removed the flag -fno-strict-aliasing. So if you need to write such code, just add that flag. It's not that hard, is it?

Re:A big improvement indeed (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453315)

New in this release: [...] we gave up on Java.

Well, actually it's the other way around: Java gave up on them - meaning that actual development of GCJ moved from GCC to OpenJDK.
Not that i understand what it means for GCC, but i understand that it does not mean much for Java.

Re:A big improvement indeed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453545)

One thing gcc allows is to compile Java code into native code. Is this also supported by OpenJDK?

Re:A big improvement indeed (4, Interesting)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about a year ago | (#45453605)

No, it is not. But GCJ Java-to-native compiling didn't result in particularly fast Java code. That's one of the major reasons developers and enterprises ignored GCJ in the first place.

Re:A big improvement indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454527)

A big advantage of gcj is that the resulting binaries start a lot faster than firing up a 'normal' jre. If you have a 'simple' program, that you only need a few times a day, compiling it with gcj may be a really efficient way to run it.

Re:A big improvement indeed (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#45454835)

IMO the problem is the lack of a JIT compiler. Java is too slow without it.

Re:A big improvement indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453405)

lots of stuff most people don't care about

Personally I do care about Address Sanitizer and UB Sanitizer. This is one of the most useful features of clang that gcc lacks.

All others features probably will not affect most of the users, but at least they prevent statements like "I can't compile my program with gcc, because it doesn't support X".

And then there's this: (0)

golodh (893453) | about a year ago | (#45453615)

How about notifying us when it's actually there? I get a bit antsy about newsflashes like this ("we're planning to release version X and if all goes well it will totally prod buttock").

I'm not particularly interested in what people (GCC in this case) say they'll (probably) include in the next release.

Why not wait until they've actually released the new version and we have something to test? Or better yet, someone has done the tests for us and is writing about the results.

Re:And then there's this: (0)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#45453667)

How about notifying us when it's actually there?

Oh wait, a large amount of it is:

http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html [gnu.org]

Why not wait until they've actually released the new version and we have something to test?

It's released under something called the GPL, by an organisation called the FSF. You may have heard of them. They have things called "repositories" running a system called "SVN" which runs over the "internet".

Apparently you can "download" stuff from these repositories, compile it and run it right now.

It's not a commercial compiler and doesn't do press releases. This is all cutting edge stuff which is being worked on now, much of which is scheduled to be merged into the mainline before release.

Re:And then there's this: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454191)

Just let us know where 4.9 is in those 'repositories', please.

Without the arrogant stupidity.

Re:And then there's this: (0)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#45454425)

Just let us know where 4.9 is in those 'repositories', please.

let me google that for you [lmgtfy.com] .

Without the arrogant stupidity.

Why? It's a link near the top of the the main project page, which is a simple google search away. Not knowing is pure lazyness. And complaining that it's not available is really dumb.

Re:And then there's this: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454963)

How about notifying us when it's actually there? I get a bit antsy about newsflashes like this ("we're planning to release version X and if all goes well it will totally prod buttock").

A sad bride, married to a software engineer, showed up at the minister's rectory six months after the wedding.

"What seems to be the problem, my child?" asked the minister.

"Reverend, I like Eddie, he's a good husband and provides everything I need, but I'd like to have children and we've never had relations."

"But I remember the two of you went on your honeymoon. Didn't you have a chance to, uh, consummate the relationship?"

"Well, we spent a week on the beach. The days were fabulous. Then each night, Eddie would sit on the edge of the bed telling me how great it was going to be."

Re:A big improvement indeed (3, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#45453647)

I care. Or I will, in 5 years, when it's finally available in debian.

Re:A big improvement indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454577)

not sure giving up on java is that big a deal with openjdk.. in fact this is probably a smart decision, why repeat the effort when we don't have to there are so many more things to focus on :P)

Re:A big improvement indeed (2)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about a year ago | (#45454805)

Where do such negative comments come from? Have programers generally left /.? :-/

I for one welcome gcc 4.9, as it allows me to use the full Ada 2012 language. Good job!

Re:A big improvement indeed (2)

blueg3 (192743) | about a year ago | (#45454907)

If you don't care about safety and error checking, multithreading, Atom SoCs, or C++11... what sort of new features are you really expecting in a compiler. That touches pretty much all the major functionality of a compiler.

Improved diagnostics output (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453163)

Improved diagnostics output. GCC can now play with colors!

Maybe not..
This is just noise.

Re:Improved diagnostics output (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453353)

Pretty colors are for the clang kids who only know how to code with crayons and finger paints.

Re:Improved diagnostics output (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453747)

Pretty colors are for the clang kids who only know how to code with crayons and finger paints.

I was writing a kernel once, but then I ran out of blue crayon and had to drop it. :-(

Blue finger paint just isn't good enough!

Re:Improved diagnostics output (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year ago | (#45454829)

Blue finger paints is crap.

- Linus

ADA? (4, Informative)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#45453173)

"Ada" is the name of a person, and the language.

"ADA" is the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the American Dental Association.

Re:ADA? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453199)

If you did'nt knew [lmgtfy.com] .

Re:ADA? (1)

Bozzio (183974) | about a year ago | (#45453321)

"ADA" is the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the American Dental Association.

... and quite a few other things, if you care to look outside of the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADA [wikipedia.org]

Can we please stop mass-linking Phoronix? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453185)

For God's sake, that's *THIRTEEN* (13) links to Phoronix!
Pointing to a couple of ML threads or to the 4.9 changelog would've been more than enough. http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html

Re:Can we please stop mass-linking Phoronix? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453225)

Self-linking is the modus operandi of Phoronix. It is a link farm, after all.

All you will get is a mass of links, whether you click through to TFA or not. At least this way there's no utility in clicking through.

But but Google? (4, Insightful)

iYk6 (1425255) | about a year ago | (#45453285)

But then how would Googlebot know that Phoronix is really great and popular and they should rank it higher in searches?

Re:But but Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453867)

Is this news about how GCC 4.9 is great or how about Phoronix is popular?

Coming in 1024 sometime? (1, Troll)

John.Banister (1291556) | about a year ago | (#45453187)

This is like Amazon book ads, only more pointless. Why not either make a submission "The GCC team needs your donation," or wait to advertise it until people can respond to the ad and download it? If it had only one new feature (and it wasn't "now secretly adds more sophisticated backdoors") people with any sort of interest in using GCC will probably get the new version when it's available.

Re:Coming in 1024 sometime? (3, Informative)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year ago | (#45453253)

2014 is just a month and a half away, and you can compile 4.9 now from the dev branch of their subversion tree.

Looks like they are porting Clang features... (3, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#45453219)

The whole article really reads quite fanboyish / alternatively GCC has hired a marketing department. But it looks really lame when you talk about exiting new features, and you just copied what Clang had before.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453319)

Superior backend, coming up to par with Clang on the frontend, what's not to love?

Frankly, the BSD licenses appear to be a failure psychologically. The proponents of BSD-licensed software go apeshit when GPL-licensed software reuses their code, but are ok if the stuff disappears in proprietary forks.

You can see this, for example, with LibreOffice/OpenOffice: every LibreOffice release announcement draws ire from the OpenOffice crowd (well, particularly one OpenOffice developer) because the latter feels their code has been ripped off.

There has been a lot of that going on with OpenBSD and FreeBSD as well, but it's grown a bit more quiet in recent years.

Now we have the same with Clang/GCC.

If you don't want to have your code relicensed under different licenses, use a Copyleft license. If you want to have your code relicensed under different licenses, stop complaining when somebody actually does exactly that.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453431)

> Frankly, the BSD licenses appear to be a failure psychologically. The proponents of BSD-licensed software go apeshit when GPL-licensed software reuses their code, but are ok if the stuff disappears in proprietary forks.

It's mostly Theo de Raadt, not the "OpenBSD community" Theo likes to take credit for a lot of work that, frankly, he and the OpenBSD community did not do but which has slipped under the OpenBSD umbrella. Take a look at the original SSH code and how it gor reliensed by OpenBSD. It's frankly the only useful tool coming from that community, and they *STILL* keep the user and host private keys in unencrypted plain text, with no passphrase, by default and no expiration date, and no usable chroot cage. (The SFTP chroot cage setup is a joke, and a sad one.)

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453465)

Yup. Remember the "OMG they're stealing our code!" whinefest when a linux dev copied the juicy parts of a BSD wifi driver?

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453495)

Wasn't that because the Linux dev changed the license of the code? That's illegal and once fixed I don't remember anyone complaining.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453911)

Wasn't that because the Linux dev changed the license of the code? That's illegal

No, it isn't. That's one of the points of (modified) BSD.

and once fixed I don't remember anyone complaining.

I have not followed this, but my guess would be that the original attributions/authorship notices were removed in the source code. And that's pretty much the only thing that BSD/MIT licensing actually insists on. But that is not the background behind the majority of shit storms.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454193)

The 2-clause BSD license (which is the one used nowadays) is 7 lines of natural English (excluding the disclaimer) and people still can't understand it...

You can't take BSD code and change it's license.

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

IIRC a Linux dev though it was possible and did so with an OpenBSD piece of code. Some OpenBSD devs complained and the license was reverted to the original one. End of the "shitstorm."

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#45454879)

Actually you can switch licenses if the new license does not conflict with the old license. Since BSD allows basically everything to be done with it you can restrict it any way you wish. Including putting it in proprietary source code.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454429)

>That's illegal and once fixed I don't remember anyone complaining

No it isn't. That's the whole fucking point of BSD over GPL. BSD lets a third party use the code and integrate it into their own product and license that product however the fuck they want. GPL requires that they release their product as GPL. This is, in fact, the crux of the whole fucking license war. Please help raise the average IQ of internet posts by throwing all of your computers in the trash and never logging on again.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454703)

I swear these discussions are at Phoronix level of intelligence.

Is it that hard to read and understand two paragraphs? (Hint: read point 1.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd_license#2-clause_license_.28.22Simplified_BSD_License.22_or_.22FreeBSD_License.22.29

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45455029)

The following quote is the complete text of the 2-clause BSD license (sans the disclaimer, which doesn't add anything relevant to this discussion). Note that it is this text which determines what is and isn't allowed to do with code using that license. I put the parts relevant for this discussion in bold.

Copyright (c) YEAR, OWNER
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453475)

The problem with code re-usage to GPL projects is that it is so much more complicated to copy features back.
If a proprietary project with closed source uses the BSD licensed project but add nifty functions it is just a matter of writing similar functions of your own.
When a GNU licensed project grabs some BSD code and improves upon you can't just write code that does the same, because if you do then it is very likely that your code will end up looking very much like the GNU licensed implementation and people will find it less plausible that you didn't look at the other source.

Also, it is pretty clear that the intention of BSD licensed code is to have an open source project that is free to use. While grabbing it and releasing it under a less free open source license is completely legal it is clearly a dickish move. Anyone who isn't a zealot would just add their changes under the original license to honor the intentions of the original author.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (3, Insightful)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about a year ago | (#45453675)

You are re-stating the original argument about free software that has been done to death on the internet.

To the BSD folks, they want to write software that is free as in free beer. You can take it, and do whatever you want with it. Drink it, dump it in the trash, give it to your friends, sell it. Free as in Freedom of the user

To the GPL or Free Software Foundation folks, they want to write software that is free as in free speech. You can copy it, and distribute it, but you can't restrict other people's rights to copy it and distribute it. Just like I can't hand out a copy of the US Constitution or a speech by Abraham Lincoln and forbid other people from sharing it or publishing a copy. Free as in Freedom of the software

You may prefer the BSD way, and that's fine, but "who isn't a zealot" is out of line. Having a different set of priorities does not make one a dick. Blatantly copying code under one license to the other is a dickish move, but re-engineering from one to the other is perfectly legitimate. And yes, I'm in the FSF camp.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453929)

To the GPL or Free Software Foundation folks, they want to write software that is free as in free speech. You can copy it, and distribute it, but you can't restrict other people's rights to copy it and distribute it.

Uhm, the entire point of GPL is that you can restrict others right to copy it and distribute it.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454221)

Having being open with your changes to something you got the recipe for, for free, imposed on you isn't much of a "restriction". Unless you are an unmitigated, premeditated scumbag, that is.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about a year ago | (#45455023)

Being open with your changes is all the LGPL requires, but the GPL requires being open about all the unrelated stuff you've done when you integrate a GPL component.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454415)

Uhm, the entire point of GPL is that you can restrict others right to copy it and distribute it.

Put it in this way: the entire point of GPL is that the code will not stop being copied and distributed

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (3, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#45454351)

To the GPL or Free Software Foundation folks, they want to write software that is free as in free speech. You can copy it, and distribute it, but you can't restrict other people's rights to copy it and distribute it. Just like I can't hand out a copy of the US Constitution or a speech by Abraham Lincoln and forbid other people from sharing it or publishing a copy. Free as in Freedom of the software

Yes, there is always the "free as in free speech" high horse, but the fact is that (a) you can't legally use GPL licensed code in a BSD project, and (b) when licensed code is moved to a BSD project and modified, you can't legally move the changes back to the BSD project.

So these people's view of "free" is something that I can only call perverted.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454641)

Re-licensing code without the consent of the author violates against both licenses. Retain the original license, ask permission of the author, rewrite or get out. At least one of the parents above don't appreciate this.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#45454481)

To the BSD folks, they want to write software that is free as in free beer. You can take it, and do whatever you want with it. Drink it, dump it in the trash, give it to your friends, sell it. Free as in Freedom of the user.

You can do all of those with the GPL, too. The GPL is very hot on Free as in Freedom of the User. As a user you will always have those freedoms and no one can take them away from you.

What the GPL does is restrict the freedom of the distributor slightly.

</license pedantry>

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

peppepz (1311345) | about a year ago | (#45453745)

The difference between the BSD license and the GPL is that it allows you to copy the code and use it under more restrictive terms. You're saying that however, if you do, then you're a zealot. So what's the advantage of the BSD license, if the GPL only harms zealots?

If a proprietary project with closed source uses the BSD licensed project but add nifty functions it is just a matter of writing similar functions of your own. When a GNU licensed project grabs some BSD code and improves upon you can't just write code that does the same, because if you do then it is very likely that your code will end up looking very much like the GNU licensed implementation and people will find it less plausible that you didn't look at the other source.

What's the difference? If you didn't look at the original code, then the chances that your own code will look very much like the invisible implementation are the same, whether that invisible implementation is GNU or proprietary. If you did look at the original code, then you're deriving from it, and you should respect its license.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454011)

What's the difference? If you didn't look at the original code, then the chances that your own code will look very much like the invisible implementation are the same

The difference is that since the invisible implementation isn't available to me it is evident that I couldn't have looked at it. In the case where it was available to me someone who doesn't know shit will show up and say that I copied the other project and then I have to defend myself for wanting to make the original project competitive.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453479)

The proponents of BSD-licensed software go apeshit when GPL-licensed software reuses their code

Do you have some links? I've been hearing this for years, but I've never seen it happen.
Actually, I've always had the impression BSD developers were happy about their code being reused by anyone (why would they use such a license otherwise?).

If you don't want to have your code relicensed under different licenses, use a Copyleft license

Permissive licenses don't let you relicense the code under a different license either.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453651)

Permissive licenses don't let you relicense the code under a different license either.

What about CC0?

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453899)

INAL, but no. The would defeat its entire purpose.

You can incorporate a CC0 work into a differently licensed one, but you can't change the license of the original.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454013)

The proponents of BSD-licensed software go apeshit when GPL-licensed software reuses their code

Do you have some links? I've been hearing this for years, but I've never seen it happen.

Use a search engine with the three words (without the quote marks) "libreoffice released rcweir". rcweir is the Apache OpenOffice maintainer or something like that, and he can't really let a LibreOffice release announcement go uncontested.

But he's not the first caught up with this particular licensing scenario like a mouse staring down a snake.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454499)

The proponents of BSD-licensed software go apeshit when GPL-licensed software reuses their code

Do you have some links? I've been hearing this for years, but I've never seen it happen.

Use a search engine with the three words (without the quote marks) "libreoffice released rcweir".

I did. I also searched for "rwweir gpl" and checked the first 10-20 results from DDG and Google.
I didn't see he bitch about licenses once (although he's quite vocal and does bitch about stuff) and he even said he was pleased LO was including stuff from AOO.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453597)

It's hard to take your claim seriously when your only evidence is a single guy with a stick up his ass. As far as I can tell, there is a place for both open source licenses (BSD and GPL), and the people who actually use those licenses normally get along fine.

You're going to have to do a lot more hand-waving than that.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#45453641)

You can see this, for example, with LibreOffice/OpenOffice: every LibreOffice release announcement draws ire from the OpenOffice crowd (well, particularly one OpenOffice developer) because the latter feels their code has been ripped off.

What? These are both GPL. I've never seen BSD people care at all about who uses their code, only GPL people freaking out. How did this hogwash get voted up?

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454053)

You can see this, for example, with LibreOffice/OpenOffice: every LibreOffice release announcement draws ire from the OpenOffice crowd (well, particularly one OpenOffice developer) because the latter feels their code has been ripped off.

What? These are both GPL.

No. Apache OpenOffice is released under a permissive Apache style license, similar to the MIT X11 license. That makes the copying one-way (short of code explicitly contributed to both).

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

ljw1004 (764174) | about a year ago | (#45453951)

the BSD licenses appear to be a failure psychologically. The proponents of BSD-licensed software go apeshit when GPL-licensed software reuses their code, but are ok if the stuff disappears in proprietary forks.

You can see this, for example, with LibreOffice/OpenOffice: every LibreOffice release announcement draws ire from the OpenOffice crowd (well, particularly one OpenOffice developer) because the latter feels their code has been ripped off.

That's okay. I'm a huge proponent of BSD and I'm delighted wherever it goes. I'm not sure which proponents you're referring to, but they might be figments of your own prejudices, and I don't believe that any individual examples of your phenomenon would be representative.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (4, Insightful)

mvdwege (243851) | about a year ago | (#45453361)

Wait, what, Clang now supports other languages than C-derivatives, like Ada and Fortran?

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453391)

Yep. They're also stealing OMP4.0 from Clang (which got OMP3.1 just a month or so ago, while GCC had it since 4.7) and Cilk (which is not in Clang at all, though people are working on 3rd party extension)

The whole post really reads quite trollish / alternatively Clang has hired black PR department.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#45454913)

You mean Clang has the Apple PR department.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453389)

But it looks really lame when you talk about exiting new features, and you just copied what Clang had before.

Might be true. But also shows that competition is healthy. If clang wasn't there to implement these features first, GCC wouldn't have done it as well, maybe. So I think: everyone wins.

Re: Looks like they are porting Clang features... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453413)

Not in this case. my hardcore development has all moved to clang. we dumped GCC like the gpl-infested crap hole that it is.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453589)

Steve... is that you? Are you alive?

Re: Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453697)

I have zero respect for people not using gcc for compiling programs because of its license. They are either ignorant, or zealots, or both.

Note that things are completely different if you want to actually integrate compiler code into your project; in that case of course the license matters.

Re: Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453755)

I have zero respect for people using gcc for compiling programs because of its license. They are either ignorant, or zealots, or both.

Re: Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

turgid (580780) | about a year ago | (#45453923)

Not in this case. my hardcore development has all moved to clang. we dumped GCC like the gpl-infested crap hole that it is.

Was that so that you could add your own proprietary language front-end and charge developers money for it? Or perhaps you had some secret-sauce extras to add to C or C++ to "add value" to monetize your exiting developer base? Please patent your extensions before one of those stinking, long-haired hippy types tried to implement a Free version for gcc.

Oh, you were trolling. Right-oh.

Re: Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454693)

Can't speak for the OP but we added an optimization plugin and some error checking plugins to clang. These are internal and not distributed so we the GPL wasn't a direct factor. It was an indirect factor in that GCC's code is intentionally bad to prevent people from trying to bypass the GPL. We could have added our changes to GCC but it would have been a lot more work and would then become a maintainance issue for GCC updates.

Re: Looks like they are porting Clang features... (1)

turgid (580780) | about a year ago | (#45454779)

It was an indirect factor in that GCC's code is intentionally bad to prevent people from trying to bypass the GPL. We could have added our changes to GCC but it would have been a lot more work and would then become a maintainance issue for GCC updates.

Can you explain? Can you tell us what code in particular is bad and can you show us your patch? I've never looked at GCC internals, but I'd like to know.

Re:Looks like they are porting Clang features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454299)

But it looks really lame when you talk about exiting new features, and you just copied what Clang had before.

Would you prefer they didn't add a good feature that Clang came up with? "Oh, that sounds neat, but Clang already did it so we will have to think up something novel instead." It is not some TV series trying to have an original plot, it should be about making the tool function as best as they can. If someone else comes up with a neat idea, and they can incorporate it, that should be good news.

Finish C++11 support first? (5, Interesting)

joncombe (623734) | about a year ago | (#45453397)

I see from the status page the Regex support is still not complete, part of the C++11 standard. It would be nice if support for this standard could be completed before starting on C++14.

Re:Finish C++11 support first? (2)

dremon (735466) | about a year ago | (#45453559)

Their status html docs aren't updated yet to reflect the actual status. Look at the gcc/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/status_cxx2011.xml file for the up to date information (or the gcc/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog for technical revision history).

Re:Finish C++11 support first? (2)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about a year ago | (#45453689)

In open source software as in proprietary, often the out-of-date component of the project is the documentation.

Re:Finish C++11 support first? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#45453583)

Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems. - Jamie Zawinski, 1997

Re:Finish C++11 support first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453669)

14 is a bug fix release. You don't need to support every library in C++11, before you fix existing things.

Re:Finish C++11 support first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45454403)

There are apparently some juicy bits in the C++14 that are more sought after than the completion of C++11.

nds32 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45453613)

Is that another arm SOC or something else?

no news for gccgo (1)

FithisUX (855293) | about a year ago | (#45455041)

and no gdc integration. These are the items I am most interested about.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?