Hello Nick,
"Robert Jacques" <sandf...@jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:op.vepzxsdx26s...@sandford...
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:47:14 -0400, BCS <n...@anon.com> wrote:
Hello Robert,
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:55:48 -0400, BCS <n...@anon.com> wrote:
The main issue (as I understand it) is adding windows style
structured exception handling to LLVM.
After a little digging it seems that LLVM legally CAN'T add SEH as
MS has it under patent. I'm still digging to figure out how it could
be patented without making SEH an irrelevant technology.
The patent seems to be Borlands's:
USPTO patent #5,628,016 Patent held by Borland on compiler support
for
SEH.
From a Wine wiki page:
http://wiki.winehq.org/CompilerExceptionSupport
It does seem to expire on June 15, 2014, though and I assume
DigitalMars has a license, so a LLVM fork is not unreasonable.
Seems a weak reason. A programmer that's worried about infringing
software patents can't write anything more useful than "Hello World".
I'm seriously not convinced at all that it's even possible to write
useful code that doesn't technically infringe on some software patent.
As a programmer, either you accept the fact that what you do is
inevitably going to trample software patents, or you just simply don't
be a programmer. That's all there is.
Or keep an eye on what people have actually been sued over and don't do that.
In this case I'd be surprised if it could stand up in court. Unless SEH is
insanely convoluted to implement I can't see how the patent passes the non-obviousness
criteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness
I wonder if you can get a patent thrown out as invalid without someone infringing
on it?
--
... <IXOYE><
