Re: DMD Backend Long-term
BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff167c88cce5058a18c...@news.digitalmars.com... Hello dsimcha, If we're really lucky, Bilski Vs. Kappos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski) will send all the software patent attorneys to the poorhouse next week and we can just start trampling freely. FWIW: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf Can someone decode that?
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
On 7/6/10 11:35 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: BCSn...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff167c88cce5058a18c...@news.digitalmars.com... Hello dsimcha, If we're really lucky, Bilski Vs. Kappos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski) will send all the software patent attorneys to the poorhouse next week and we can just start trampling freely. FWIW: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf Can someone decode that? In case that wasn't simply a commentary on unreadable legalese, here's what Ars Technica said about it: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/supreme-court-allows-but-limits-business-method-patents.ars
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello dsimcha, If we're really lucky, Bilski Vs. Kappos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski) will send all the software patent attorneys to the poorhouse next week and we can just start trampling freely. FWIW: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
bearophile Wrote: Leandro Lucarella: Yes, I don't think copying with 'cosmetic changes' works, legally speaking. Otherwise everybody would be doing it. If 10% of changes is not legally enough, they LLVM dev can copy it and then change the 15% of it or even 20%. There must exist a minimum amount of differences between two blocks of code that allows them to be legally considered different, otherwise GNU is worse than a software patent. The GPL is not formulated in terms fraction of difference. It's formulated in terms of basement of work. If you don't base your work on another one, you have no need to copy it.
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff1582d8cce06addc4d...@news.digitalmars.com... Hello Nick, BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff157f28cce05385dcf...@news.digitalmars.com... Hello Nick, 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. Especially since the Plaintiff would apperently be the modern-day Borland. Do they even exist anymore? If they do, would they even be able to afford a lawyer? Yes they could, MS bought it (I'm not sure if that's the patent or the company, but MS has it now). Hmm. That means the LLVM devs themselves would be safe, but companies using it would get extorted ( http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=1953blogid=14 and http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10206988-56.html ). 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? I've wondered that, too. Actually, I've wondered that about US laws in general. Being a US citizen (and having passed the manditory American Government class in high school) I probably *should* know... :/ In the US we have two kinds of laws; the kind nobody should need and the kind nobody understands. ;) Heh :)
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Leandro Lucarella: Yes, I don't think copying with 'cosmetic changes' works, legally speaking. Otherwise everybody would be doing it. If 10% of changes is not legally enough, they LLVM dev can copy it and then change the 15% of it or even 20%. There must exist a minimum amount of differences between two blocks of code that allows them to be legally considered different, otherwise GNU is worse than a software patent. Nick Sabalausky: Plus, do we even know that this is what's holding up LLVM exceptions on Windows? The main LLVM dev(s) are hired by Apple, that I presume is not so worried of windows too much. What they want is people to think LLVM is a bit multi-platform, so they can contribute to the project for free. I'll restart helping the LLVM project when it has gained some exceptions for Windows :-) Bye, bearophile
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
bearophile wrote: Leandro Lucarella: Yes, I don't think copying with 'cosmetic changes' works, legally speaking. Otherwise everybody would be doing it. If 10% of changes is not legally enough, they LLVM dev can copy it and then change the 15% of it or even 20%. There must exist a minimum amount of differences between two blocks of code that allows them to be legally considered different, otherwise GNU is worse than a software patent. Nick Sabalausky: Plus, do we even know that this is what's holding up LLVM exceptions on Windows? The main LLVM dev(s) are hired by Apple, that I presume is not so worried of windows too much. What they want is people to think LLVM is a bit multi-platform, so they can contribute to the project for free. I'll restart helping the LLVM project when it has gained some exceptions for Windows :-) Bye, bearophile Hear, hear. Sometimes the pendulum swings too far one way and then time becomes due for it to swing back the other way. Windows exception system (SEH - structured exception handling) does have some nice things about it which are tedious if not difficult on other platforms. It would be gracious of LLVM to acknowledge this. Cheers Justin Johansson
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello bearophile, Leandro Lucarella: Yes, I don't think copying with 'cosmetic changes' works, legally speaking. Otherwise everybody would be doing it. If 10% of changes is not legally enough, they LLVM dev can copy it and then change the 15% of it or even 20%. There must exist a minimum amount of differences between two blocks of code that allows them to be legally considered different, otherwise GNU is worse than a software patent. The fact that you started with GNU code it the important thing: the original file is under GNU, so the file after the very first edit (one key stroke) is also under GNU and because it is, so is the file after the second edit, etc. etc. If you started with a blank file and ended up with something that (after ignoring formatting) was 50% similar to some GNU code, you might be able to get away with it as long as you've never looked at the other code, but I wouldn't bet on it. -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
On Jun 23, 10 19:18, bearophile wrote: Leandro Lucarella: Yes, I don't think copying with 'cosmetic changes' works, legally speaking. Otherwise everybody would be doing it. If 10% of changes is not legally enough, they LLVM dev can copy it and then change the 15% of it or even 20%. There must exist a minimum amount of differences between two blocks of code that allows them to be legally considered different, otherwise GNU is worse than a software patent. The % doesn't matter. If your code is a derivative work of some GPL code, then your code must also be in GPL if you distribute it. Nick Sabalausky: Plus, do we even know that this is what's holding up LLVM exceptions on Windows? The main LLVM dev(s) are hired by Apple, that I presume is not so worried of windows too much. What they want is people to think LLVM is a bit multi-platform, so they can contribute to the project for free. I'll restart helping the LLVM project when it has gained some exceptions for Windows :-) Bye, bearophile
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
That's funny. I read you original answer and laughed. It was too true!
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote in message news:hvsqhj$i...@digitalmars.com... Leandro Lucarella: Yes, I don't think copying with 'cosmetic changes' works, legally speaking. Otherwise everybody would be doing it. If 10% of changes is not legally enough, they LLVM dev can copy it and then change the 15% of it or even 20%. There must exist a minimum amount of differences between two blocks of code that allows them to be legally considered different, otherwise GNU is worse than a software patent. Many people do consider the GPL evil.
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
bearophile wrote: Robert Jacques: 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. On Windows G++ supports exceptions. I have two questions: 1) Do you know how they do this? Do they have a license? If they have a licence why don't LLVM people too have it? Gcc has two ways to do this: * Using setjump/longjump. This works across foreign DLL calls, but incurs a small performance penalty even if no exception is thrown (setjmp needs to be called for each stack frame which will require cleanup in case of exception); * Embedding dwarf information in the executable to allow stack unwinding. This only works if all the stack frames where an exception may occur where compiled with gcc (i.e you may call foreign DLLs, but if you give them a callback then this callback may not throw). This has absolutely no performance penalty so long as no exception is thrown. Neither approach is compatible with MS exception handling, so you can't call an MS C++ DLL and catch the exceptions it throws, and if you call a DLL and give it a callback and your callback throws then the cleanup code in the DLL won't be run (and vice versa of course). SEH would allow this to work. 2) Why isn't LLVM just copying that part of the GCC code? If a true copy is not possible, why aren't copying the code with enough cosmetic changes? (A good amount of time ago I did believe that the main purpose of the Open Source idea was to copy source code between projects, to avoid reinventing things. I was so wrong.) The way I understood it, it was mostly a matter of manpower. Most LLVM devs are on MacOS. Posix platforms are close enough to MacOS that they can get by with less porting effort (plus they probably have more motivated devs than Windows), so they are not too far behind, but Windows is another matter. Jerome -- mailto:jeber...@free.fr http://jeberger.free.fr Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Thank you Jerome and all the people that have answered me, I was ignorant about GNU license. if you call a DLL and give it a callback and your callback throws then the cleanup code in the DLL won't be run (and vice versa of course). SEH would allow this to work. If someone writes a compiler/language that allows programs to be ported with no problems from Windows to other nonwindows systems, this may damage Windows a little (but isn't Mono able to do this with C#2 programs?). But it's economically advantageous for Microsoft to make it easy for people to create new compilers and languages for Windows that work well with other Windows programs. So in my opinion having a good Clang++ on Windows is good for the economic well-being of Windows. They can grant LLVM a free licence to use Windows-style exceptions. Bye, bearophile
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
On Jun 24, 10 03:57, bearophile wrote: Thank you Jerome and all the people that have answered me, I was ignorant about GNU license. if you call a DLL and give it a callback and your callback throws then the cleanup code in the DLL won't be run (and vice versa of course). SEH would allow this to work. If someone writes a compiler/language that allows programs to be ported with no problems from Windows to other nonwindows systems, this may damage Windows a little (but isn't Mono able to do this with C#2 programs?). But it's economically advantageous for Microsoft to make it easy for people to create new compilers and languages for Windows that work well with other Windows programs. So in my opinion having a good Clang++ on Windows is good for the economic well-being of Windows. They can grant LLVM a free licence to use Windows-style exceptions. Bye, bearophile Why should Microsoft do that instead of promoting Visual C++? ;)
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
KennyTM~ wrote: On Jun 24, 10 03:57, bearophile wrote: Thank you Jerome and all the people that have answered me, I was ignorant about GNU license. if you call a DLL and give it a callback and your callback throws then the cleanup code in the DLL won't be run (and vice versa of course). SEH would allow this to work. If someone writes a compiler/language that allows programs to be ported with no problems from Windows to other nonwindows systems, this may damage Windows a little (but isn't Mono able to do this with C#2 programs?). But it's economically advantageous for Microsoft to make it easy for people to create new compilers and languages for Windows that work well with other Windows programs. So in my opinion having a good Clang++ on Windows is good for the economic well-being of Windows. They can grant LLVM a free licence to use Windows-style exceptions. Bye, bearophile Why should Microsoft do that instead of promoting Visual C++? ;) Because there's no money in compilers anymore.
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
KennyTM~ wrote: On Jun 24, 10 03:57, bearophile wrote: Thank you Jerome and all the people that have answered me, I was ignorant about GNU license. if you call a DLL and give it a callback and your callback throws then the cleanup code in the DLL won't be run (and vice versa of course). SEH would allow this to work. If someone writes a compiler/language that allows programs to be ported with no problems from Windows to other nonwindows systems, this may damage Windows a little (but isn't Mono able to do this with C#2 programs?). But it's economically advantageous for Microsoft to make it easy for people to create new compilers and languages for Windows that work well with other Windows programs. So in my opinion having a good Clang++ on Windows is good for the economic well-being of Windows. They can grant LLVM a free licence to use Windows-style exceptions. Bye, bearophile Why should Microsoft do that instead of promoting Visual C++? ;) Because they're giving away Visual C++ for free anyway? Jerome -- mailto:jeber...@free.fr http://jeberger.free.fr Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote in message news:hvtovg$2m0...@digitalmars.com... Thank you Jerome and all the people that have answered me, I was ignorant about GNU license. if you call a DLL and give it a callback and your callback throws then the cleanup code in the DLL won't be run (and vice versa of course). SEH would allow this to work. If someone writes a compiler/language that allows programs to be ported with no problems from Windows to other nonwindows systems, this may damage Windows a little (but isn't Mono able to do this with C#2 programs?). But it's economically advantageous for Microsoft to make it easy for people to create new compilers and languages for Windows that work well with other Windows programs. So in my opinion having a good Clang++ on Windows is good for the economic well-being of Windows. They can grant LLVM a free licence to use Windows-style exceptions. Unfortunately, that's never gonna happen. They prefer to use their patents to extort companies that use OSS code: http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=1953blogid=14 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10206988-56.html --- Not sent from an iPhone.
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello Don, KennyTM~ wrote: Why should Microsoft do that instead of promoting Visual C++? ;) Because there's no money in compilers anymore. Very true. Or in languages for that matter. But there is huge money in tools. -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello bearophile, But it's economically advantageous for Microsoft to make it easy for people to create new compilers and languages for Windows that work well with other Windows programs. So in my opinion having a good Clang++ on Windows is good for the economic well-being of Windows. They can grant LLVM a free licence to use Windows-style exceptions. It should be safe to assume that most windows programs (by how many are running) are compiler with MSVC and at $800 to $5000 (and up IIRC) a pop why should they do anything to help the competition? Seriously, I suspect that GCC, LLVM, etc. are literally irrelevant to how much MS makes off Windows. -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello Jérôme, KennyTM~ wrote: On Jun 24, 10 03:57, bearophile wrote: Thank you Jerome and all the people that have answered me, I was ignorant about GNU license. if you call a DLL and give it a callback and your callback throws then the cleanup code in the DLL won't be run (and vice versa of course). SEH would allow this to work. If someone writes a compiler/language that allows programs to be ported with no problems from Windows to other nonwindows systems, this may damage Windows a little (but isn't Mono able to do this with C#2 programs?). But it's economically advantageous for Microsoft to make it easy for people to create new compilers and languages for Windows that work well with other Windows programs. So in my opinion having a good Clang++ on Windows is good for the economic well-being of Windows. They can grant LLVM a free licence to use Windows-style exceptions. Bye, bearophile Why should Microsoft do that instead of promoting Visual C++? ;) Because they're giving away Visual C++ for free anyway? Only to the people they wouldn't get money out of anyway. Anyone who /could/ matter a gnat's fart in a hurricane to MS's bottom line will want more than the free offering gives. -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Robert Jacques Wrote: The main issue (as I understand it) is adding windows style structured exception handling to LLVM. C++ compiles for me. Or are there some other issues?
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Kagamin, el 22 de junio a las 07:01 me escribiste: Robert Jacques Wrote: The main issue (as I understand it) is adding windows style structured exception handling to LLVM. C++ compiles for me. Or are there some other issues? LDC compiles too, but it doesn't support exceptions. I guess is the same with C++. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- 'It's not you, it's me'? You're giving me the 'It's not you, it's me' routine? I invented 'It's not you, it's me.' Nobody tells me it's them, not me. If it's anybody, it's me. -- George Constanza
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello Robert, On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:55:48 -0400, BCS n...@anon.com wrote: Hello Leandro, Nick Sabalausky, el 21 de junio a las 13:40 me escribiste: Eldar Insafutdinov e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote in message news:hvo49k$1uk...@digitalmars.com... In the end, Windows is the most popular OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some time for it. I wish someone could convince LLVM of that... Maybe it should be the other way around. Someone who cares about Windows should give some love to LLVM =) How hard are the problems? I have zero experience in LLVM and very little in compiler work but if the problems could be attacked without to much ramp-up I'd be interested in looking into them. 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. -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
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: Hello Leandro, Nick Sabalausky, el 21 de junio a las 13:40 me escribiste: Eldar Insafutdinov e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote in message news:hvo49k$1uk...@digitalmars.com... In the end, Windows is the most popular OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some time for it. I wish someone could convince LLVM of that... Maybe it should be the other way around. Someone who cares about Windows should give some love to LLVM =) How hard are the problems? I have zero experience in LLVM and very little in compiler work but if the problems could be attacked without to much ramp-up I'd be interested in looking into them. 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.
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
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.
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Nick Sabalausky wrote: 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. The world's not nearly that black and white. There's a huge difference in infringment in an app you write for yourself vs an app that's very public. LLVM is somewhat closer to the latter end of the spectrum. I agree that excess paranoia isn't warranted, but neither is willful ignorance.
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Robert Jacques: 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. On Windows G++ supports exceptions. I have two questions: 1) Do you know how they do this? Do they have a license? If they have a licence why don't LLVM people too have it? 2) Why isn't LLVM just copying that part of the GCC code? If a true copy is not possible, why aren't copying the code with enough cosmetic changes? (A good amount of time ago I did believe that the main purpose of the Open Source idea was to copy source code between projects, to avoid reinventing things. I was so wrong.) Bye, bearophile
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
== Quote from Brad Roberts (bra...@slice-2.puremagic.com)'s article On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Nick Sabalausky wrote: 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. The world's not nearly that black and white. There's a huge difference in infringment in an app you write for yourself vs an app that's very public. LLVM is somewhat closer to the latter end of the spectrum. I agree that excess paranoia isn't warranted, but neither is willful ignorance. If we're really lucky, Bilski Vs. Kappos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski) will send all the software patent attorneys to the poorhouse next week and we can just start trampling freely.
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
bearophile, el 22 de junio a las 19:25 me escribiste: Robert Jacques: 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. On Windows G++ supports exceptions. I have two questions: 1) Do you know how they do this? Do they have a license? If they have a licence why don't LLVM people too have it? 2) Why isn't LLVM just copying that part of the GCC code? If a true copy is not possible, why aren't copying the code with enough cosmetic changes? (A good amount of time ago I did believe that the main purpose of the Open Source idea was to copy source code between projects, to avoid reinventing things. I was so wrong.) I don't know about 1), but about 2), one of the main goals of LLVM was to have a less restrictive license than GPL, so copying GPL code is not an option for them. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- HACIA NEUQUEN: EL JUEVES SALDRA CARAVANA CON PERROS DESDE CAPITAL EN APOYO AL CACHORRO CONDENADO A MUERTE -- Crónica TV
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Leandro Lucarella: but about 2), one of the main goals of LLVM was to have a less restrictive license than GPL, so copying GPL code is not an option for them. Can't you copy it by something like 90%, enough to be able to call it different code (that's what I was referring with 'cosmetic changes')? Bye, bearophile
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
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
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello dsimcha, == Quote from Brad Roberts (bra...@slice-2.puremagic.com)'s article On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Nick Sabalausky wrote: 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. The world's not nearly that black and white. There's a huge difference in infringment in an app you write for yourself vs an app that's very public. LLVM is somewhat closer to the latter end of the spectrum. I agree that excess paranoia isn't warranted, but neither is willful ignorance. If we're really lucky, Bilski Vs. Kappos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski) will send all the software patent attorneys to the poorhouse next week and we can just start trampling freely. OTOH, based on the wiki, the court seems to support a Machine-or-transformation test and what is a compiler if not a transformation tool? -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello Leandro, Kagamin, el 22 de junio a las 07:01 me escribiste: Robert Jacques Wrote: The main issue (as I understand it) is adding windows style structured exception handling to LLVM. C++ compiles for me. Or are there some other issues? LDC compiles too, but it doesn't support exceptions. I guess is the same with C++. Why doesn't LLVM support other forms of exceptions? GCC does. -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello bearophile, Robert Jacques: 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. On Windows G++ supports exceptions. I have two questions: 1) Do you know how they do this? Do they have a license? If they have a licence why don't LLVM people too have it? The patent holder has refused licenses to all OSS projects. What GCC does is use a different system (something to do with tables). The patent is strictly for SEH. -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello Brad, I agree that excess paranoia isn't warranted, but neither is willful ignorance. Willful ignorance is the recommendation in some shops as it avoids triple damages. -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello bearophile, Leandro Lucarella: but about 2), one of the main goals of LLVM was to have a less restrictive license than GPL, so copying GPL code is not an option for them. Can't you copy it by something like 90%, enough to be able to call it different code (that's what I was referring with 'cosmetic changes')? IIRC the only way to escape a GNU license is to do a cleanroom. If the file started under GNU, it will forever be GNU. -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff157f28cce05385dcf...@news.digitalmars.com... Hello Nick, 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. Especially since the Plaintiff would apperently be the modern-day Borland. Do they even exist anymore? If they do, would they even be able to afford a lawyer? 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? I've wondered that, too. Actually, I've wondered that about US laws in general. Being a US citizen (and having passed the manditory American Government class in high school) I probably *should* know... :/
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff1581a8cce05541b41...@news.digitalmars.com... Hello bearophile, Robert Jacques: 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. On Windows G++ supports exceptions. I have two questions: 1) Do you know how they do this? Do they have a license? If they have a licence why don't LLVM people too have it? The patent holder has refused licenses to all OSS projects. What GCC does is use a different system (something to do with tables). The patent is strictly for SEH. So can't LLVM just take the same approach? Also, accoroding to http://www.microsoft.com/msj/0197/Exception/Exception.aspx (One of the links on the page from Robert above), SEH is a service provided by Windows. So wouldn't MS be the only one that would need a license? (I'm probably just misunderstanding something here.) Plus, do we even know that this is what's holding up LLVM exceptions on Windows?
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
== Quote from BCS (n...@anon.com)'s article Hello dsimcha, == Quote from Brad Roberts (bra...@slice-2.puremagic.com)'s article On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Nick Sabalausky wrote: 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. The world's not nearly that black and white. There's a huge difference in infringment in an app you write for yourself vs an app that's very public. LLVM is somewhat closer to the latter end of the spectrum. I agree that excess paranoia isn't warranted, but neither is willful ignorance. If we're really lucky, Bilski Vs. Kappos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski) will send all the software patent attorneys to the poorhouse next week and we can just start trampling freely. OTOH, based on the wiki, the court seems to support a Machine-or-transformation test and what is a compiler if not a transformation tool? Bits are not a particular article.
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
BCS, el 23 de junio a las 02:09 me escribiste: Hello bearophile, Leandro Lucarella: but about 2), one of the main goals of LLVM was to have a less restrictive license than GPL, so copying GPL code is not an option for them. Can't you copy it by something like 90%, enough to be able to call it different code (that's what I was referring with 'cosmetic changes')? IIRC the only way to escape a GNU license is to do a cleanroom. If the file started under GNU, it will forever be GNU. Yes, I don't think copying with 'cosmetic changes' works, legally speaking. Otherwise everybody would be doing it. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- El techo de mi cuarto lleno de cometas
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Nick Sabalausky, el 22 de junio a las 22:35 me escribiste: BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff1581a8cce05541b41...@news.digitalmars.com... Hello bearophile, Robert Jacques: 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. On Windows G++ supports exceptions. I have two questions: 1) Do you know how they do this? Do they have a license? If they have a licence why don't LLVM people too have it? The patent holder has refused licenses to all OSS projects. What GCC does is use a different system (something to do with tables). The patent is strictly for SEH. So can't LLVM just take the same approach? Also, accoroding to http://www.microsoft.com/msj/0197/Exception/Exception.aspx (One of the links on the page from Robert above), SEH is a service provided by Windows. So wouldn't MS be the only one that would need a license? (I'm probably just misunderstanding something here.) Plus, do we even know that this is what's holding up LLVM exceptions on Windows? I guess the best way to get answers is to ask in the LLVM mailing list, I think here you'll only find more answers =) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Lo último que hay que pensar es que se desalinea la memoria Hay que priorizar como causa la idiotez propia Ya lo tengo asumido -- Pablete, filósofo contemporáneo desconocido
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
On 6/22/2010 7:07 PM, BCS wrote: Hello Brad, I agree that excess paranoia isn't warranted, but neither is willful ignorance. Willful ignorance is the recommendation in some shops as it avoids triple damages. What I meant was s/ignorance/infringement/.. major disconnect between brain and keyboard there. Actually, most business (at least those smart enough to pay attention to patents and the dangers involved) encourage encapsulated ignorance. Engineers stay in the dark but the legal teams stay informed and guide the engineers away from likely landmines if needed. And that's likely about all I should talk about this subject. In fact, most of this thread is worth dropping as not really helping anyone or anything. If you're concerned, consult a lawyer. Later, Brad
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Leandro Lucarella, el 23 de junio a las 00:31 me escribiste: Nick Sabalausky, el 22 de junio a las 22:35 me escribiste: BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff1581a8cce05541b41...@news.digitalmars.com... Hello bearophile, Robert Jacques: 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. On Windows G++ supports exceptions. I have two questions: 1) Do you know how they do this? Do they have a license? If they have a licence why don't LLVM people too have it? The patent holder has refused licenses to all OSS projects. What GCC does is use a different system (something to do with tables). The patent is strictly for SEH. So can't LLVM just take the same approach? Also, accoroding to http://www.microsoft.com/msj/0197/Exception/Exception.aspx (One of the links on the page from Robert above), SEH is a service provided by Windows. So wouldn't MS be the only one that would need a license? (I'm probably just misunderstanding something here.) Plus, do we even know that this is what's holding up LLVM exceptions on Windows? I guess the best way to get answers is to ask in the LLVM mailing list, I think here you'll only find more answers =) Stupid! Stupid! s/more answers/more questions/ -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Can you stand up? I do believe it's working, good. That'll keep you going through the show Come on it's time to go.
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello Nick, BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff157f28cce05385dcf...@news.digitalmars.com... Hello Nick, 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. Especially since the Plaintiff would apperently be the modern-day Borland. Do they even exist anymore? If they do, would they even be able to afford a lawyer? Yes they could, MS bought it (I'm not sure if that's the patent or the company, but MS has it now). 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? I've wondered that, too. Actually, I've wondered that about US laws in general. Being a US citizen (and having passed the manditory American Government class in high school) I probably *should* know... :/ In the US we have two kinds of laws; the kind nobody should need and the kind nobody understands. ;) -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello dsimcha, == Quote from BCS (n...@anon.com)'s article Hello dsimcha, == Quote from Brad Roberts (bra...@slice-2.puremagic.com)'s article On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Nick Sabalausky wrote: 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. The world's not nearly that black and white. There's a huge difference in infringment in an app you write for yourself vs an app that's very public. LLVM is somewhat closer to the latter end of the spectrum. I agree that excess paranoia isn't warranted, but neither is willful ignorance. If we're really lucky, Bilski Vs. Kappos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski) will send all the software patent attorneys to the poorhouse next week and we can just start trampling freely. OTOH, based on the wiki, the court seems to support a Machine-or-transformation test and what is a compiler if not a transformation tool? Bits are not a particular article. We can hope! (I never said I supported software patents :) -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello Nick, BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff1581a8cce05541b41...@news.digitalmars.com... Hello bearophile, Robert Jacques: 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. On Windows G++ supports exceptions. I have two questions: 1) Do you know how they do this? Do they have a license? If they have a licence why don't LLVM people too have it? The patent holder has refused licenses to all OSS projects. What GCC does is use a different system (something to do with tables). The patent is strictly for SEH. So can't LLVM just take the same approach? Also, accoroding to http://www.microsoft.com/msj/0197/Exception/Exception.aspx (One of the links on the page from Robert above), SEH is a service provided by Windows. So wouldn't MS be the only one that would need a license? (I'm probably just misunderstanding something here.) The title of the patent leads me to believe that it covers compilers that generate code that uses SEH. Plus, do we even know that this is what's holding up LLVM exceptions on Windows? I've heard from someone who would know that the patent is the reason SEH isn't in LLVM. I also have it from some (different someone) that LLVM should in theory have setjump/longjump exception handling under windows but they didn't even venture a guess if it actually worked. If it doesn't and if LDC would use it if it were fixed I'd be interested in at least looking into fixing it (LDC people???). -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote: What is the long-term plan for the current DMD backend? I've noticed the first steps towards 64-bit support were just checked in today (excitement to the extreme). However, the backend is under such a restrictive license (which I understand Walter is not free to change) that it has a bus factor of 1. If Walter were to stop maintaining it, noone else would be able to, if I understand the licensing issues correctly. Is there a chance of these licensing issues being cleared up so that the backend can be released under a more permissive license? If not, while I understand Walter's decision to use a backend he was familiar with in the beginning, it seems like we should abandon such a heavily encumbered backend now that it needs serious work. I think it makes complete sense for the DigitalMars D compiler to use the DigitalMars backend. What we really need is more community work on compilers using other backends (GDC, LLVMDC) as well. The language can only benefit from having more than one compiler available.
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
== Quote from dsimcha (dsim...@yahoo.com)'s article What is the long-term plan for the current DMD backend? I've noticed the first steps towards 64-bit support were just checked in today (excitement to the extreme). However, the backend is under such a restrictive license (which I understand Walter is not free to change) that it has a bus factor of 1. If Walter were to stop maintaining it, noone else would be able to, if I understand the licensing issues correctly. Is there a chance of these licensing issues being cleared up so that the backend can be released under a more permissive license? If not, while I understand Walter's decision to use a backend he was familiar with in the beginning, it seems like we should abandon such a heavily encumbered backend now that it needs serious work. Hi I agree with what Sean says. Even more, DMD backend is good for development process, because it is very fast as opposed to more popular ones like llvm or gcc. What really worries me is what is going to happen on Windows. We have the burden which is old file format and optlink. There are still big problems with the linker, it has random problems on big projects, building them with debug info is even more problematic. As far as I understood that linker is being rewritten to C, but the process is very slow. It may take years to complete the port, and then to make it 64bit capable, isn't it? All existing problems would be propagated further. I would suggest(again and again) to add a new Windows backend targeting MinGW or MSVC toolchain. It should not necessarily replace the existing one, but people would at least have freedom and there wouldn't be situation that you are stuck in development when linker fails. Also those toolchain support 64bit, so it is another advantage. For those who still wants digital mars toolchain - there will be an old one. Remembering that it took Walter about 6 weeks to implement MacOS backend, that doesn't seem too bad. In the end, Windows is the most popular OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some time for it. Cheers
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Eldar Insafutdinov e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote in message news:hvo49k$1uk...@digitalmars.com... In the end, Windows is the most popular OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some time for it. I wish someone could convince LLVM of that...
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
On 21/06/10 16:07, dsimcha wrote: What is the long-term plan for the current DMD backend? I've noticed the first steps towards 64-bit support were just checked in today (excitement to the extreme). However, the backend is under such a restrictive license (which I understand Walter is not free to change) that it has a bus factor of 1. If Walter were to stop maintaining it, noone else would be able to, if I understand the licensing issues correctly. Is there a chance of these licensing issues being cleared up so that the backend can be released under a more permissive license? If not, while I understand Walter's decision to use a backend he was familiar with in the beginning, it seems like we should abandon such a heavily encumbered backend now that it needs serious work. Perhaps the 64bit backend could be written in such a way that it doesn't have the licensing issues? I have no idea what the specifics are to say if this is possible, it'd be good to not have the 64 bit backend under the current backend license though.
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Nick Sabalausky, el 21 de junio a las 13:40 me escribiste: Eldar Insafutdinov e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote in message news:hvo49k$1uk...@digitalmars.com... In the end, Windows is the most popular OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some time for it. I wish someone could convince LLVM of that... Maybe it should be the other way around. Someone who cares about Windows should give some love to LLVM =) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Es mucho mas probable que el salchichón sea primavera a que la primavera sea salchichón. -- Peperino Pómoro
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
In windows if you want use some lib that is not provide dynamic dll support, you need compile it with dmc. In this case your need deal a lot problem with lack of c head file . if there is a vc++ version backend will be big help for a lot of people who is not familiarity with c/c++ . 2010/6/22 Eldar Insafutdinov e.insafutdi...@gmail.com == Quote from dsimcha (dsim...@yahoo.com)'s article What is the long-term plan for the current DMD backend? I've noticed the first steps towards 64-bit support were just checked in today (excitement to the extreme). However, the backend is under such a restrictive license (which I understand Walter is not free to change) that it has a bus factor of 1. If Walter were to stop maintaining it, noone else would be able to, if I understand the licensing issues correctly. Is there a chance of these licensing issues being cleared up so that the backend can be released under a more permissive license? If not, while I understand Walter's decision to use a backend he was familiar with in the beginning, it seems like we should abandon such a heavily encumbered backend now that it needs serious work. Hi I agree with what Sean says. Even more, DMD backend is good for development process, because it is very fast as opposed to more popular ones like llvm or gcc. What really worries me is what is going to happen on Windows. We have the burden which is old file format and optlink. There are still big problems with the linker, it has random problems on big projects, building them with debug info is even more problematic. As far as I understood that linker is being rewritten to C, but the process is very slow. It may take years to complete the port, and then to make it 64bit capable, isn't it? All existing problems would be propagated further. I would suggest(again and again) to add a new Windows backend targeting MinGW or MSVC toolchain. It should not necessarily replace the existing one, but people would at least have freedom and there wouldn't be situation that you are stuck in development when linker fails. Also those toolchain support 64bit, so it is another advantage. For those who still wants digital mars toolchain - there will be an old one. Remembering that it took Walter about 6 weeks to implement MacOS backend, that doesn't seem too bad. In the end, Windows is the most popular OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some time for it. Cheers
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello Leandro, Nick Sabalausky, el 21 de junio a las 13:40 me escribiste: Eldar Insafutdinov e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote in message news:hvo49k$1uk...@digitalmars.com... In the end, Windows is the most popular OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some time for it. I wish someone could convince LLVM of that... Maybe it should be the other way around. Someone who cares about Windows should give some love to LLVM =) How hard are the problems? I have zero experience in LLVM and very little in compiler work but if the problems could be attacked without to much ramp-up I'd be interested in looking into them. -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello Robert, On 21/06/10 16:07, dsimcha wrote: What is the long-term plan for the current DMD backend? I've noticed the first steps towards 64-bit support were just checked in today (excitement to the extreme). However, the backend is under such a restrictive license (which I understand Walter is not free to change) that it has a bus factor of 1. If Walter were to stop maintaining it, noone else would be able to, if I understand the licensing issues correctly. Is there a chance of these licensing issues being cleared up so that the backend can be released under a more permissive license? If not, while I understand Walter's decision to use a backend he was familiar with in the beginning, it seems like we should abandon such a heavily encumbered backend now that it needs serious work. Perhaps the 64bit backend could be written in such a way that it doesn't have the licensing issues? I have no idea what the specifics are to say if this is possible, it'd be good to not have the 64 bit backend under the current backend license though. I'm going to guess that about half of the object file generator and nearly 100% of everything before the code generator will be the same for 32 and 64 bit. And at a wild guess I'm going to say that's much more than half the code in the back end. Add an error factor for me guessing and you can do the math. :( -- ... IXOYE
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:55:48 -0400, BCS n...@anon.com wrote: Hello Leandro, Nick Sabalausky, el 21 de junio a las 13:40 me escribiste: Eldar Insafutdinov e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote in message news:hvo49k$1uk...@digitalmars.com... In the end, Windows is the most popular OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some time for it. I wish someone could convince LLVM of that... Maybe it should be the other way around. Someone who cares about Windows should give some love to LLVM =) How hard are the problems? I have zero experience in LLVM and very little in compiler work but if the problems could be attacked without to much ramp-up I'd be interested in looking into them. The main issue (as I understand it) is adding windows style structured exception handling to LLVM.
