Simon Hill wrote:
> Brendon Costa said:
>> The author of the template class or container can't know
>> what types of exceptions will be thrown from them, so you must define
>> them as being able to throw all exceptions (which is how they are
>> currently).
> Ouch, you have a point. But couldn't you
Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> My personal feeling on the matter is that it seems very strange to
>>> talk about *compiler plugins* in the license for *runtime libraries*.
>>> C
That is why I'm CCing someone from Apple.
--
From: "Ian Lance Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:47 PM
To: "Yuhong Bao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Paolo Bonzini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Subject: Re: A
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20080924 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20080924/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My personal feeling on the matter is that it seems very strange to
talk about *compiler plugins* in the license for *runtime libraries*.
Considering that there are already widely available alternat
Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My personal feeling on the matter is that it seems very strange to
> talk about *compiler plugins* in the license for *runtime libraries*.
> Considering that there are already widely available alternative
> libraries (e.g. the apache stdc++ library and m
Yuhong Bao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, one of the reason I posted this was that I wanted to privately
> talk about the politics behind this issue with someone internal to
> Apple, and forward some of that to RMS and the FSF. Can this be done
> or is the politics all under NDA?
Well, good l
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Lijuan Hai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no gcc 4.1.2 at hand. but I just had a try with gcc-4.1.0 and
> gcc-4.2.0 which compiled a simple testcase with no errors or warnings.
> additionally, I had a try with some other compiler than gcc to compile
> it. a war
BTW, one of the reason I posted this was that I wanted to privately talk about
the politics behind this issue with someone internal to Apple, and forward some
of that to RMS and the FSF. Can this be done or is the politics all under NDA?
Because this issue isn't just limited to GCC, it is locki
Joe Buck wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 05:51:23PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Is that desirable? Type-based alias analysis should be able to take
advantage of the difference between them; a "char **" and a "signed char
**" cannot point at the same thing, for example.
They
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Apple's dislike of GPLv3 is a problem for gcc, yes.
>
> Well, excuse me for being a-political, but I don't see this problem.
> The relationship between GCC and Apple has never been really good
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apple's dislike of GPLv3 is a problem for gcc, yes.
Well, excuse me for being a-political, but I don't see this problem.
The relationship between GCC and Apple has never been really good
AFAIK, but that hasn't hampered
On Sep 24, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:11:41AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
Right. However, the wording I saw was much broader than just the
plugin model. It was vague and poorly worded, and you could
interpret
it as saying that use of a non-GPL assembler
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There is a simple technique which anybody is free to use to make this
happen much faster: make a large donation to the SFLC and/or the FSF,
contingent on this issue being finished. In the absence of that, it
will happen in the tim
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:11:41AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> Right. However, the wording I saw was much broader than just the
>> plugin model. It was vague and poorly worded, and you could interpret
>> it as saying that
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:11:41AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> Right. However, the wording I saw was much broader than just the
> plugin model. It was vague and poorly worded, and you could interpret
> it as saying that use of a non-GPL assembler or linker was also not
> allowed to build
On Sep 24, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I'm not speaking for Apple here, and I am not a lawyer. However, the
last draft of the runtime library exception clause (which is quite
old
by now) imposed licensing restrictions on the executables generated
by
GCC (due to linked runtime
Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm not speaking for Apple here, and I am not a lawyer. However, the
> > last draft of the runtime library exception clause (which is quite old
> > by now) imposed licensing restrictions on the executables generated by
> > GCC (due to linked runtime l
Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> fix the problem. My understanding of Apple's current position is that
>> they won't take any action until they see the final version of the gcc
>> runtime license.
>
>>> Basically, what happened is
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There is a simple technique which anybody is free to use to make this
>> happen much faster: make a large donation to the SFLC and/or the FSF,
>> contingent on this issue being finished. In the absence of that, it
>> will happen in the time that people h
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:05:37AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 10:01 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> >>requirements on that code.
> >
> >I'm not speaking for Apple here, and I am not a lawyer. However,
> >the last draft of the runtime library exception clause (which is
>
On Sep 24, 2008, at 10:01 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
requirements on that code.
I'm not speaking for Apple here, and I am not a lawyer. However,
the last draft of the runtime library exception clause (which is
quite old by now)
I'm sorry, to be clear, I meant "the last draft *that I saw*
On Sep 24, 2008, at 8:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
However if GPLv3 is such a huge issue
at Apple, it does make one wonder if llvm will ever see a gcc
front-end newer
than the current 4.2 one.
The LLVM folks are writing a new frontend anyhow. In the future they
presumably plan to stop using
On Sep 24, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
fix the problem. My understanding of Apple's current position is that
they won't take any action until they see the final version of the gcc
runtime license.
Basically, what happened is that Apple created a Tivoized device
called the
iPho
On Sep 24, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
The SC knows of the issue
Still, after six months it would be nice to have a clearer idea of
what
will happen with respect to Darwin/ObjC, especially since the
previous
statement (which I suppose was "as clear as" Mike could do) was
buried
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Is it top secret information only available to some few members of the
>> Steering Committee, or is some information sharable on this list? Just
>> knowing that inde
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:33:35PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Well at least that explains their total inactivity in the last year. Is Dale
> > the one still allowed to read the gcc-patches mailing list?
>
> No, that would be Stan just because he's not at Apple.
>
> It must be said also that
I'm just not having any luck bootstrapping this thing ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37639
Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it top secret information only available to some few members of the
> Steering Committee, or is some information sharable on this list? Just
> knowing that indeed a runtime library license will be finalized before
> Christmas (ie in 2008) and t
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It's sad, but I think that there is need for the SC to take action on this.
I personally don't think there is any need to remove them as
maintainers until the FSF finally produces the GPLv3 version of the
runtime library license
> > However if GPLv3 is such a huge issue
> > at Apple, it does make one wonder if llvm will ever see a gcc front-end
> > newer
> > than the current 4.2 one.
>
> The LLVM folks are writing a new frontend anyhow. In the future they
> presumably plan to stop using the gcc frontend. gcc's code is
Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, actually I think I now see the OP's point. Apple is scared of the
> GPLv3 because the iPhone might violate it, so they are not contributing
> to anything that falls under the GPLv3.
...
> 1) does it make sense to keep a maintainer category that is
> Well at least that explains their total inactivity in the last year. Is Dale
> the one still allowed to read the gcc-patches mailing list?
No, that would be Stan just because he's not at Apple.
It must be said also that Mike Stump accepted to review/discuss
Darwin/ObjC patches that he was CCed
"Yuhong Bao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1) This is offtopic.
> Yeah, but I want to bring this up because I can tell it is affecting GCC
> development.
>
>>From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-02/msg00523.html:
> "> If someone steps forward, are you allowed to follow the patches list
> We can't
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:47:18AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> > Yuhong Bao wrote:
> >> and Apple uses GCC (which is now under GPLv3) and Mac OS X on it.
> >> Unfortunately, the iPhone is incompatible with GPLv3, if you want more see
> >> the link I mentioned.
> >
> > App
Brendon Costa said:
> The author of the template class or container can't know
> what types of exceptions will be thrown from them, so you must define
> them as being able to throw all exceptions (which is how they are
> currently).
Ouch, you have a point. But couldn't you put this round the other
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> Yuhong Bao wrote:
>> and Apple uses GCC (which is now under GPLv3) and Mac OS X on it.
>> Unfortunately, the iPhone is incompatible with GPLv3, if you want more see
>> the link I mentioned.
>
> Apple does not use a GPLv3 version of GCC.
Ah, actually I think I now see the O
I have no gcc 4.1.2 at hand. but I just had a try with gcc-4.1.0 and
gcc-4.2.0 which compiled a simple testcase with no errors or warnings.
additionally, I had a try with some other compiler than gcc to compile
it. a warning issued.
I think it's possibly too strict of gcc raising a error on sch cas
> I agree that it won't be very useful initially due to lots of third
> party code like boost neither defining nor adhering exception
> restrictions 100% of the time (STL may be guilty also). However, this
> is a catch 22. Why not provide the mechanism for verifying exception
> specifications so t
Thanks for all the links. I knew there were people wanting this but I
didn't quite get how big an issue it was.
Brain Dessent wrote:
> You're essentially trusting that all
> exception specifiers for every function in the program and *all* library
> code are always present and always correct which
40 matches
Mail list logo
