Page 13 of 13
Posted: 2008-07-05 19:35
by julian67
AdrianTM wrote:If you sincerely believe that Windows was compiled with GCC, and that its core tools and utilities are GNU tools and utilities[...]
I haven't said that or implied it, why would you mention it if not for creating a straw-man? I responded by giving you another example of straw-man similarly constructed so that you can see that I can use your style too.
I don't know what you claim I misrepresented here, except for my initial mistake of assuming that Stallman wouldn't use Debian if he doesn't recommend it to which you brought proof that he does use it, I don't see what I misrepresented, please explain.
AdrianTM you're right, you don't seek to misrepresent others, I'm sorry I levelled that one at you. The persistently disingenuous stuff has come from another forum member and I shouldn't have seen you in the same way. I got a good build up of steam in the brain box and I vented it, please excuse me.
I found the question about GCC and Windows....well....I've said what I think already.
Posted: 2008-07-05 19:39
by AdrianTM
Well, I admit, not all my questions are smart or relevant, but I've found that response uncalled for that's why I built a similar example to show you how you actually responded. Sorry, will try to keep my cool too.
Posted: 2008-07-05 22:21
by BioTube
17 pages is a good run for what started as a troll thread, but I think it's time to let this one die. When it comes to RMS, people either love him or hate him, with no in between. Preventing a flamefest in such a discussion seems to be impossible.
Posted: 2008-07-07 01:07
by dmn_clown
julian67 wrote:But they didn't and they haven't.
Actually they are forking PCC to replace GCC
http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/369/
Posted: 2008-07-07 01:46
by julian67
More power to them. They state they're not forking it, and expect it to differ only slightly in OpenBSD. It has to be good for them to have basic tools that better meet their needs. It does look like a very long term project though.
Posted: 2008-07-08 05:32
by ninjatux
BioTube wrote:If gcc didn't exist, another compiler would've come along. You're right when you say a compiler ain't trivial, which means the fairy land you live in that BSD can't ever have grown to what it is today without GNU is complete fantasy; like I said, BSD would've made its own compiler.
Actually, BSD technically did make its own compiler. Apple technically made its own compiler. The BSD versions of GCC are quite different. Vanilla GCC is just a starting point.
Posted: 2008-07-08 06:05
by julian67
ninjatux wrote:BioTube wrote:If gcc didn't exist, another compiler would've come along. You're right when you say a compiler ain't trivial, which means the fairy land you live in that BSD can't ever have grown to what it is today without GNU is complete fantasy; like I said, BSD would've made its own compiler.
Actually, BSD technically did make its own compiler. Apple technically made its own compiler. The BSD versions of GCC are quite different. Vanilla GCC is just a starting point.
Which *BSD?
This aroused my interest because I'd never heard of it and it would surely make big news. It doesn't seem to be the case. The BSDs use GCC, it's not been forked. I'm sure various *BSD developers have contributed upstream but I can't find any claims to support what you say. I've searched NetBSD docs (as it's the oldest*) and OpenBSD (the most keen to find a different compiler) and some more general BSD and GCC info and history. I can't imagine that you mean simply installing GCC on *BSD would be to "technically make its own compiler"???? Do you mean something else?
*edit: oldest maintained free version
Posted: 2008-07-08 10:36
by Telemachus
@ Ninjatux: The Apple version is a
version of GCC, not an entirely different animal. So Apple didn't make it's own compiler, it adjusted GNU's. In fact, Apple gives credit to GNU, as they should. See the output of
man gcc below. I don't have a *BSD available, but I suspect it's the same with those distros
Code: Select all
GCC(1) GNU GCC(1)
NAME
gcc - GNU project C and C++ compiler
SYNOPSIS
gcc [-c|-S|-E] [-std=standard]
[-g] [-pg] [-Olevel]
[-Wwarn...] [-pedantic]
[-Idir...] [-Ldir...]
[-Dmacro[=defn]...] [-Umacro]
[-foption...] [-mmachine-option...]
[-o outfile] infile...
Only the most useful options are listed here; see below for the remain-
der. g++ accepts mostly the same options as gcc.
In Apple's version of GCC, both cc and gcc are actually symbolic links
to a compiler named like gcc-version; which compiler is linked to may
be changed using the command gcc_select. Similarly, c++ and g++ are
links to a compiler named like g++-version.
Note that Apple's GCC includes a number of extensions to standard GCC
(flagged below with ``APPLE ONLY''), and that not all generic GCC
options are available or supported on Darwin / Mac OS X. In particu-
lar, Apple does not currently support the compilation of Fortran, Ada,
or Java, although there are third parties who have made these work.
Posted: 2008-07-09 01:24
by ninjatux
I never said any of the BSDs or Apple actually forked GCC. I said they used vanilla GCC as a starting point. Take vanilla GCC and compile it on Mac OS X via MacPorts or some other system. Then use that to compile a program, and compile the same program with Apple GCC. There's a reason why so many people (incorrectly) say that Apple's GCC is broken compared to vanilla GCC. It has just been heavily modded to suit the Darwin system. Some programs that normally compile correctly with vanilla GCC miscompile with Apple's GCC. In Apple's case, I'm sure. In the BSDs' case, it might take a bit of hunting.
Posted: 2008-07-09 02:26
by julian67
gcc-local - local modifications to gcc describes modifications made to GCC in OpenBSD. At
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/p ... /changelog the Debian changelogs can be viewed. I'm absolutely certain that Suse and Red Hat do the same.
In no way can any of these be described as new compiler, or anything except GCC with OS specific patches and some fixes the developers feel they need to make. Debian is even famous (or notorious depending on your point of view) for making numerous such changes to packages.
Posted: 2008-07-11 17:36
by garrincha
Re: Is Richard Stallman the Enemy of Freedom?
Posted: 2017-02-18 14:43
by hackspirit
I think RMS is purist and extremist GNU man. He does not tolerates shady things in his codes. And that why we like them. Just like Pure Blue should be as pure as #0000ff, he is just the way we can take reference from his GNU philosophy. Although not practical 100% but he should hold the torch of pure GNU-man.
