On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jaromil - jaro...@dyne.org <devuan.kn.0edf9dfcba.jaromil#dyne....@ob.0sg.net> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, KatolaZ wrote: >> This sounds strange and new at the same time, since GCC was indeed >> designed to be portable and ported to several architectures since from >> the beginning. Do you have any quote by RMS or by any guy who has >> contributed to gcc to support your statement? I don't think that GCC >> is a hairball, to be honest.
Oh, a hairball can be portable in its entirety:-) It is just hard to use parts of it. GCC was deliberately making things interdepend on each other, even without technical reasons, simply to prevent commercial entities to replace the e.g. front-end of the compiler with some proprietary code and then have that use the GPL backend. This would enable a new, proprietary language to leverage all the optimizations gcc has. So this prevents what Apple does with swift on llvm right now, and I understand the reasoning behind that decision, even though I regret it since it prevents us from having many valuable tools for code analysis and refactoring. https://lwn.net/Articles/629259/ covers the most recent flare-up when somebody wanted to make the AST of GCC accessible. > This is not the first post in which this spamgourmet account is > spreading FUD. We may need to react to this beyond argumenting. I don't see anything I said on this list to be related to be spreading Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt. I did argue for some of things I think are sensible, just like everybody else here. All of them can be implemented _without_ systemd (and I have or had them running that way). Yes, one of the ideas I like was first proposed by Lennart, but is this about building a new distribution or about holding a grudge? If it is the later, then you won't need to bother to ban me. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng