Some had contacted me about it. Could have sent response off the list.
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 1:05 AM > From: "Richard Kenner" <ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> > To: dim...@gmx.com > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, siddh...@gotplt.org, ville.voutilai...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > > It is an argument against the idea that LLVM is the default way that > > people choose. > > I don't think that anybody made the argument that LLVM is the "default" > in any sense. What's being given here are reasons why some people > prefer LLVM over GCC. > > > In those places, they don't trust Microsoft or anybody that provides > > software products that are difficult or impossible to review. Free > > software is not prohibited, since the government has access to the > > source code. Any tool that comes compiled is not acceptable there. > > For a compiler, of course, you need a compiled version of it to start > with. If you use that same compiler to build itself, having the > source code does *not* protect you from malware, as Ken Thompson > showed back in 1984. Even if you take the stance that you'll compile > GCC with LLVM and vice versa, you still have the risk that both of the > binaries have been compromised in this way. There are tools that look for code that is not supposed to be there. But people get sloppy and it's a lot of bother. That's been my experience.
