; David Edelsohn
Subject: Re: Notes from the GROW'10 workshop panel (GCC research opportunities
workshop)
On 27 April 2010 14:27, Grigori Fursin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I created the page on GCC Wiki with this info:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Research
>
> Please, feel fr
On 27 April 2010 14:27, Grigori Fursin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I created the page on GCC Wiki with this info:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Research
>
> Please, feel free to update or rewrite completely
> (if you feel that something is wrong, etc)...
>
I think that a verbatim copy of the email seems
[mailto:lopeziba...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 6:51 PM
To: Grigori Fursin
Cc: Dorit Nuzman; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; erven.ro...@inria.fr; David Edelsohn
Subject: Re: Notes from the GROW'10 workshop panel (GCC research opportunities
workshop)
On 16 April 2010 13:21, Grigori Fursin
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 13:57 +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> (BTW I call lowlevel any language which does not manage memory
> automatically; I am quite fond of Ocaml even if I don't use it much today.
> So in my eyes C++, Ada95 & Fortran2005 are still low-level; this is only a
> matter of taste
]
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 6:51 PM
To: Grigori Fursin
Cc: Dorit Nuzman; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; erven.ro...@inria.fr; David Edelsohn
Subject: Re: Notes from the GROW'10 workshop panel (GCC research opportunities
workshop)
On 16 April 2010 13:21, Grigori Fursin wrote:
>
> I think, the main
On 16 April 2010 13:21, Grigori Fursin wrote:
>
> I think, the main problem for students and researchers is that they
> see lots of stuff going on with GCC and on mailing lists but they may
> be shy/scared/not sure where to start if they want to contribute
> or even if they will be welcome to cont
Dear Manuel,
Thank you very much for your answers! This is what I believe researchers
who are trying to select a compiler for their work would like to know/hear.
I think, the main problem for students and researchers is that they
see lots of stuff going on with GCC and on mailing lists but they
On 04/15/2010 01:07 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 04/15/2010 12:57 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course I do know about gcj. But I never met any person using it,
>>> and I don't know about any person or project really using it
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 04/15/2010 12:57 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>>
>> Of course I do know about gcj. But I never met any person using it,
>> and I don't know about any person or project really using it (as an
>> example, I am not sure than any Debian or F
On 04/15/2010 12:57 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> Of course I do know about gcj. But I never met any person using it,
> and I don't know about any person or project really using it (as an
> example, I am not sure than any Debian or Fedora package is compiled
> with gcj into a native executab
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:26:16AM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 14 April 2010 23:34, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> >
> > And my personal preference on GCC licensing would be more a Linux-kernel
> > like GPL with copyright belonging to authors employee (I don't feel a SCO
> > like issue a
I would like to give my opinion as a volunteer contributor on several
of the points you raised.
On 14 April 2010 16:23, Grigori Fursin wrote:
>
> * Need to encourage cleanup/infrastructure work on GCC and provide
> stable/flexible/extensible APIs (the question is how to encourage such
> infrastru
On 14 April 2010 23:34, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> And my personal preference on GCC licensing would be more a Linux-kernel
> like GPL with copyright belonging to authors employee (I don't feel a SCO
> like issue as a major threat today; it might have been ten years ago). That
> is much easie
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
My point is that academics can quite easily contribute to GPL
software, but much harder obtain the necessary legal authorizations to
transfer copyright to FSF. My intuition is that if (in a different
past & a different world which did not ha
On 14 April 2010 22:46, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Basile Starynkevitch writes:
>
>> My point is that academics can quite easily contribute to GPL
>> software, but much harder obtain the necessary legal authorizations to
>> transfer copyright to FSF. My intuition is that if (in a different
>> past
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:49:08PM +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> Toon Moene wrote:
>>
>> Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for GCC: There might be too many
>> hurdles to use GCC in academia.
>
> This is probably true, however, the plugin ability of the just released
> GCC 4.5 (or is it re
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> My point is that academics can quite easily contribute to GPL
> software, but much harder obtain the necessary legal authorizations to
> transfer copyright to FSF. My intuition is that if (in a different
> past & a different world which did not happen) GCC was only
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
Toon Moene wrote:
Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for GCC: There might be too many
hurdles to use GCC in academia.
This is probably true, however, the plugin ability of the just released
GCC 4.5 (or is it released tomorrow) helps probably significantly.
My p
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
Toon Moene wrote:
Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for GCC: There might be too many
hurdles to use GCC in academia.
This is probably true, however, the plugin ability of the just released
GCC 4.5 (or is it released tomorrow) helps probably significantly.
My p
Toon Moene wrote:
Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for GCC: There might be too many hurdles
to use GCC in academia.
This is probably true, however, the plugin ability of the just released
GCC 4.5 (or is it released tomorrow) helps probably significantly.
Academics (even people working in
Nathan Froyd writes:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> To attract new developers, GCC needs to modernize its internal
>> structure. I have some thoughts on that, but progress has been slow,
>> due mostly to resource constraints.
>
> Would you mind expanding--e
> "Richard" == Richard Guenther writes:
Richard> I think we have made good progress with cleaning up the
Richard> frontend - backend interface.
FWIW, I can attest to this based on my experience on the incremental
branch.
Tom
Nathan Froyd wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
To attract new developers, GCC needs to modernize its internal
structure. I have some thoughts on that, but progress has been slow,
due mostly to resource constraints.
Would you mind expanding--even just a l
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:44, Nathan Froyd wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:18, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>>> wrote:
>>> > Otherwise, as Ian said in another topic [2]: "I hav
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:44, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:18, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
>> > Otherwise, as Ian said in another topic [2]: "I have a different fear:
>> > that gcc will become increasing irre
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:18, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
>> > Otherwise, as Ian said in another topic [2]: "I have a different fear:
>> > that gcc will become increasing ir
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:18, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
> > Otherwise, as Ian said in another topic [2]: "I have a different fear:
> > that gcc will become increasing irrelevant".
>
> That's my impression, as well. It is true o
Hi Manuel,
PS: On the other hand, I think that modifying GCC to suit the purposes
of dragonegg or LLVM is a *bad* idea.
my policy has been to only propose GCC patches that are useful to GCC itself.
Well, yesterday I broke this rule and posted a patch that was only of interest
to dragonegg, but
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:18, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> GCC is better than Clang/LLVM in many aspects but, like it or not, the
> opposite is also true, and we should learn from those aspects what we
> can, take what is good and drop what is bad. [1]
Agreed.
> Otherwise, as Ian said in anoth
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 14 April 2010 16:34, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> You know, I'm getting pretty fed up with all this LLVM advocacy on a
>> GCC list. It's distracting and counter-productive.
>
> You cannot accuse Grigori/Dorit of Clang/LLVM ad
On 14 April 2010 16:34, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You know, I'm getting pretty fed up with all this LLVM advocacy on a
> GCC list. It's distracting and counter-productive.
You cannot accuse Grigori/Dorit of Clang/LLVM advocacy. He is
retransmitting other people's feedback on perceived GCC
n then, I'm not sure if the
> difficulty of working
> with it will be considered a good tradeoff for most companies.
>
> Cheers,
> Grigori
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Dorit
> Nuzma
11, 2010 2:54 PM
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Notes from the GROW'10 workshop panel (GCC research opportunities
workshop)
Dear all,
We would like to share notes from the lively panel discussion at
GROW'10 (GCC Research Opportunities Workshop) that took place at the
end of January in Pisa, Ita
: Grigori Fursin
Cc: 'Dorit Nuzman'; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Notes from the GROW'10 workshop panel (GCC research opportunities
workshop)
On Apr 11, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Grigori Fursin wrote:
> By the way, I remember that when we had first discussions to include plugin
> framewor
On Apr 11, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Grigori Fursin wrote:
> By the way, I remember that when we had first discussions to include plugin
> framework to GCC some
> years ago,
> first feedback was extremely negative. Nevertheless, GCC 4.5 will feature
> plugin framework (that
> will
> also be very usefu
ssage-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Lattner
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 8:15 PM
To: Dorit Nuzman
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Notes from the GROW'10 workshop panel (GCC research opportunities
workshop)
On Apr 11, 2010, at 5:54 AM
On Apr 11, 2010, at 5:54 AM, Dorit Nuzman wrote:
>
> * Get statistics on percentage of papers/projects that use compilers other
> than GCC, and ask them why...
Hi Dorit,
Here is a semi reasonably list of llvm-based publications:
http://llvm.org/pubs/ which might be useful.
> (By the way, why
Dear all,
We would like to share notes from the lively panel discussion at
GROW'10 (GCC Research Opportunities Workshop) that took place at the
end of January in Pisa, Italy (alongside the HiPEAC conference).
The main topic of the discussion was:
How to make GCC more attractive to research
38 matches
Mail list logo
