From: Tim Riker <Tim@Rikers.org>
To: Aaron Sethman <androsyn@ratbox.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: non-gcc linux?
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 02:18:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3A03D466.738ED67@Rikers.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0011040031450.11261-100000@squeaker.ratbox.org>
This is also a nice thought, but there is an obstacle.
The Pro64 tools are Open Source and GPLed:
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/Pro64/
SGI retains the copyright to the code.
As far as I know, the FSF owns the copyright to all code in the gcc
suite. If improvements were taken from the Pro64 tools the copyright to
said code would have to remain.
>From what I understand the FSF will not allow any code to be added to
gcc that is not copyright by the FSF. Intel has offered direct patches
to gcc to support better optimizations for Itanium. Some of there
patches improve performance on other platforms. As far as I know the gcc
team has not even looked at the patches but has required that full
copyright be transferred to the FSF first.
I understand there are other hardware vendors who have written patches
only to be met by this same adamant position taken by the FSF.
Others that are commenting on the slow progress of some features in gcc
should consider for themselves whether this position benefits the Open
Source community or not.
Note: it _is_ clear that this position _could_ be of _some_ benefit to
the Free Software community as it places the FSF in a more defensible
position if there were ever a legal dispute on pirated sections of the
FSF copyrighted code.
Aaron Sethman wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:07:12PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > 1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do better
> > > > optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no need to argue
> > >
> > > I think we only care about this when they become free software.
> >
> > SGI's pro64 is free software and AFAIK is able to compile a kernel on IA64.
> > It is also not clear if gcc will ever produce good code on IA64.
>
> Well if its compiling the kernel just fine without alterations to the
> code, then fine. If not, if the SGI compiler is GPL'd pillage its sources
> and get that code working in gcc. Otherwise, trying to get linux to work
> with other C compilers doesn't seem worth the effort.
>
> Aaron
--
Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs! <g>
All I need to know I could have learned in Kindergarten
... if I'd just been paying attention.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-11-04 9:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 109+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-11-01 22:40 Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? J . A . Magallon
2000-11-01 22:53 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 1:12 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 2:47 ` J . A . Magallon
2000-11-02 3:26 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 11:40 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-01 22:57 ` Kurt Garloff
2000-11-01 22:47 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-01 22:45 ` Gérard Roudier
2000-11-01 23:07 ` Ben Pfaff
2000-11-01 23:12 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-01 23:11 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-01 23:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-01 23:21 ` Tom Rini
2000-11-01 23:30 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-01 23:36 ` Tom Rini
2000-11-02 0:22 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 4:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2000-11-02 4:59 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-01 23:37 ` Nathan Paul Simons
2000-11-01 23:29 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-01 23:54 ` Cort Dougan
2000-11-01 23:45 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-02 0:00 ` Cort Dougan
2000-11-02 0:54 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 0:21 ` Nathan Paul Simons
2000-11-02 0:11 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-02 0:32 ` H. Peter Anvin
2000-11-02 0:59 ` Bill Nottingham
2000-11-02 18:55 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Tim Riker
2000-11-02 19:07 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 19:07 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 19:24 ` Ben Ford
2000-11-02 19:31 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 20:37 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2000-11-02 20:53 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 21:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2000-11-02 21:21 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-04 11:30 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Kai Henningsen
2000-11-02 22:46 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2000-11-02 23:16 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-03 12:02 ` Martin Dalecki
2000-11-02 20:53 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 21:04 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 21:17 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 21:23 ` Andi Kleen
2000-11-02 21:27 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-02 21:41 ` Andi Kleen
2000-11-02 21:43 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-03 7:21 ` Gábor Lénárt
2000-11-04 11:39 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-04 11:37 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Kai Henningsen
2000-11-07 16:33 ` Jes Sorensen
2000-11-07 20:52 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-07 21:06 ` Richard B. Johnson
2000-11-07 22:08 ` David Lang
2000-11-07 21:36 ` Richard B. Johnson
2000-11-08 0:04 ` yodaiken
2000-11-02 19:18 ` Andi Kleen
2000-11-02 19:17 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-02 19:52 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-02 20:00 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 20:29 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-02 22:23 ` D. Hugh Redelmeier
2000-11-02 22:31 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-03 22:02 ` D. Hugh Redelmeier
2000-11-04 5:34 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Aaron Sethman
2000-11-04 9:18 ` Tim Riker [this message]
2000-11-04 10:58 ` non-gcc linux? Alan Cox
2000-11-05 20:52 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-05 21:06 ` Jakub Jelinek
2000-11-05 21:18 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-05 22:42 ` Marc Lehmann
2000-11-05 23:05 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-06 0:05 ` Marc Lehmann
2000-11-06 8:53 ` Thomas Pornin
2000-11-05 23:26 ` Ion Badulescu
2000-11-06 6:34 ` Eric W. Biederman
2000-11-05 22:46 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-05 22:45 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-05 22:52 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-04 12:20 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-06 17:14 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Ralf Baechle
2000-11-02 20:21 ` Andi Kleen
2000-11-02 20:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2000-11-04 12:24 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-05 3:28 ` Michael Meissner
2000-11-05 13:03 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-03 11:33 ` Thomas Pornin
2000-11-04 11:19 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-02 2:42 ` Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Marc Lehmann
2000-11-02 21:24 ` Gérard Roudier
2000-11-02 22:37 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-02 6:28 ` Jakub Jelinek
2000-11-02 0:11 ` Nathan Paul Simons
2000-11-02 0:06 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-02 0:22 ` Tom Rini
2000-11-02 0:26 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 0:56 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 0:17 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2000-11-02 0:30 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 1:01 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2000-11-01 23:04 ` George
2000-11-02 1:08 ` Jan Dvorak
2000-11-01 23:12 ` Alan Cox
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-11-04 4:25 non-gcc linux? Bryan Sparks
[not found] <fa.fvk85sv.1oigpiv@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.cq7bdsv.gggbio@ifi.uio.no>
2000-11-06 0:34 ` Russ Allbery
2000-11-06 1:01 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-06 23:14 ` Adam Sampson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3A03D466.738ED67@Rikers.org \
--to=tim@rikers.org \
--cc=androsyn@ratbox.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox