GCC Plugin introduction
Hi, I have written a very basic article on GCC Plugins (how to build a plugin from the ground, some info on APIs, and how to instrument code). The material is based on GCC 9. The code is fully documented and working. Would be a great pleasure to be listed on the GCC plugins page. I'm sure this will save headaches for someone! I leave you the link to my article: - https://gabrieleserra.ml/blog/2020-08-27-an-introduction-to-gcc-and-gccs-plugins.html I hope community will appreciate, Gabriele Serra PhD Student @ Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna Web: gabrieleserra.ml
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 9:03 PM Nathan Sidwell wrote: > > [double sigh, attaching a pdf causes it to be blocked, and I guess the number > of > URLs is also triggering a spam trap for the follow up. I have removed many of > the URLS from this, you'll have to use your google-fu for sources. I emailed > several members of the SC, and don't want to bomb them with yet a third copy. > ] > > Dear members of the GCC Steering Committee (SC), I ask you to remove Richard > Stallman (RMS) from the SC, or, should you chose not to do so, make a clear > statement as to why he remains. As far as I know the GCC Steering Committee (SC) acts as the "GNU maintainer" of GCC with respect to how the GNU project is set up. That likely makes it a representative of the "GCC project" even though the SC rarely presents itself as such. I've never been asked to endorse or vote members of the SC, instead it seems to have "self-appointed" itself in the beginning and when moving back under the GNU umbrella likely the FSF "appointed" the original set of members as the GNU maintainer. I know some members voluntarily leaved but I have no idea about the process of new members entering the SC - apart from suggesting the SC is self-appointed (but GNU processes likely require the GNU project leaders consent). So this whole story points at a dysfunctional set up of the representation of the GCC project. I suppose GNU (sub-)projects are not supposed to represent themselves. I would not consider voting RMS onto the SC at this point, in fact I'd not re-elect him. I would even ask him to resign from this position. But being inclusive also means being inclusive to people with different opinions, so I welcome technical contribution to GCC by RMS. If RMS acts contrary to (unwritten) code of conducts inside the GCC community then appropriate sanctions should apply. I do think that the request at hand puts specific pressure on the SC members that is unwarranted - you ask for them to respond but they are likely powerless as to the actual request. In fact were I on the SC I would suggest to all of my fellow SC members to resign and re-organize how GCC wants to be represented. That would effectively break the communication channel between GCC and the GNU Project [the FSF] but at this point it might be the important signal to send. Richard.
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
> I think I will leave this discussion up to those who have more > familiarity with the guy than I do. There's no doubt that some of the > stuff Stallman has written creeps me the hell out, and I think it was > more the tone of the OP I objected to. I mostly want to stay out of this and will leave much of this discussion to others (though I have met RMS personally on a number of occaisions), but I want to mostly say that I agree with Jeff that it's important that this discussion stay civil. I believe that to a large extent, the discussion here is reflective of a much larger discussion in society of to what extent, if at all, an entity associated with an person must or should take action based on things that that person does while not associated with that entity. I think all of us understand that, on the one extreme, there are some things so eggregious that entities must take action and on the other, we don't want companies taking actions against employees that express unpopular political positions or are members of marginalized minorities. There's the famous Supreme Court Justice who said "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it", but I think it's worse here: I suspect that many more of us would agree on whether a particular piece of media is pornography or not than would agree on whether a particular behavior does or doesn't cross the line in terms of the obligations of an entity associated with that person.
GSoC 2021
Greetings, I saw a task on your site for GSoC called <>. I am very interested in it, and I would like to know if it is possible to do it this summer. I have experience in C/C++ development as well as experience in related fields. I know how to compile GCC, and I have a top-level understanding of how LTO works. Unfortunately, I've never written compilers yet, but I've had experience in developing a LISP interpreter, and I've also watched a lot of conference talks about compilers. I am sending a link to my CV. I hope that you will be interested in it. Can I ask you to tell me about the further screening process for GSoC? https://gitlab.com/torilov/cv/-/blob/master/eng.pdf Thanks, Dmitry Torilov
Re: My 2nd attempt to devel for gcc
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, pawel k. via Gcc wrote: > Hello, > I would like to ask whether there would be interest in the project to be > able to build a single binary of gcc where target would be selectable with > option flags ie more than one target could be included and aimed for by > single binary. > > If so i could try myself at adding such feature to gcc. It looks ambitious > but doable. I've estimated this as taking about two person-years of work (that is, two person-years of work for someone with extensive experience in GCC development). https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02675.html While there have, for example, been various conversions of target macros to hooks, and other such similar changes, since then, I don't think anything fundamentally changes the basic estimate. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
> On 27 Mar 2021, at 08:08, Didier Kryn wrote: > > I've been lurking on this list for a while but never contributed in > any way to the project. Therefore I understand my voice has little weight. > > I'm terrified by this campaign of harassment against the person who > has given the biggest contribution to free software. +1 > This confirms to my > eyes that the People *is not* the defensor of Liberty and only the law > can defend it. The success of this campaign will prove that even the > liberty to express personnal opinions seems excessive to the People. > This is how terror begins. > > -- Didier > >
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
On 30/03/2021 1:18 am, Richard Kenner wrote: I think I will leave this discussion up to those who have more familiarity with the guy than I do. There's no doubt that some of the stuff Stallman has written creeps me the hell out, and I think it was more the tone of the OP I objected to. I mostly want to stay out of this and will leave much of this discussion to others (though I have met RMS personally on a number of occaisions), but I want to mostly say that I agree with Jeff that it's important that this discussion stay civil. I believe that to a large extent, the discussion here is reflective of a much larger discussion in society of to what extent, if at all, an entity associated with an person must or should take action based on things that that person does while not associated with that entity. It's worth noting that when RMS was kicked from FSF, there was a 2k-strong petition in favour, and a 3.5k-strong petition against. So clearly there is a discussion to be had, but as long as the left-wing (through self-rightiousness and threats of exclusion/withdrawal) and the right-wing (through belligerance and abuse/hostility) are trying actively to shut down discussion, that will not take place.
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
Here is something close to the fundamental issue: Believing in private life, that people are entitled to their own associations and opinions (even bad ones!), and entitled to make their own mistakes, too — and that, barring some direct connection to work life or extraordinary circumstance, that none of this is the concern of the little platoons of finks lurking in the community, particularly when driven by facebook lackeys muzzling everyday journalists who go against the grain. We see this not only here but also to medical information dealing with coronavirus and vaccines. - Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 9:41 AM > From: "Soul Studios" > To: "Richard Kenner" > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, m...@klomp.org, nat...@acm.org > Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee > > > On 30/03/2021 1:18 am, Richard Kenner wrote: > >> I think I will leave this discussion up to those who have more > >> familiarity with the guy than I do. There's no doubt that some of the > >> stuff Stallman has written creeps me the hell out, and I think it was > >> more the tone of the OP I objected to. > > > > I mostly want to stay out of this and will leave much of this discussion to > > others (though I have met RMS personally on a number of occaisions), but I > > want to mostly say that I agree with Jeff that it's important that this > > discussion stay civil. > > > > I believe that to a large extent, the discussion here is reflective of a > > much larger discussion in society of to what extent, if at all, an entity > > associated with an person must or should take action based on things that > > that person does while not associated with that entity. > > It's worth noting that when RMS was kicked from FSF, there was a > 2k-strong petition in favour, and a 3.5k-strong petition against. So > clearly there is a discussion to be had, but as long as the left-wing > (through self-rightiousness and threats of exclusion/withdrawal) and the > right-wing (through belligerance and abuse/hostility) are trying > actively to shut down discussion, that will not take place. >
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 4:33 PM Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote: > > Here is something close to the fundamental issue: Believing in private life, > that people are entitled to their own associations and opinions (even bad > ones!), > and entitled to make their own mistakes, too — and that, barring some direct > connection to work life or extraordinary circumstance, that none of this is > the concern of the little platoons of finks lurking in the community, > particularly when driven by facebook lackeys muzzling everyday journalists > who go against the grain. We see this not only here but also to medical > information dealing with coronavirus and vaccines. Please work to avoid using terms like "finks" or "lackeys" when describing members of the GCC community. Please be respectful of other people's opinions. Thanks. The question here is not whether RMS is permitted to contribute to GCC. I have not seen anybody arguing against that. The question is whether the GCC community should put him in a declared leadership position. For a leadership position, which serves as an example for the community and to some extent demonstrates the values shared by the community, I think it is reasonable that there is a decreased expectation of privacy. Ian
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, Mark Wielaard wrote: > He does indeed show up randomly claiming authority even if the GNU > community has told him no. And it is important to say upfront he has > no authority and that his attempts to cancel the work of hardworking > GNU contributors is unwelcome. IMHO for the GCC community this means > to be explicit he doesn't have any authority and he shouldn't be on > the GCC steering committee. For example, consider the October 2019 discussion on libc-alpha of removing the abort "joke" from the glibc manual. We rejected RMS's claims of authority to say that the joke should be kept, or kept indefinitely until various general points could be decided, and removed it from the manual anyway without waiting for conclusions on all those general points. RMS only has authority over decisions taken about individual GNU packages where the people developing those packages let him have that authority and make or refrain from making changes based on what he says. We should not give him such authority by treating his views as having some significance not given to such views expressed by other people; changes he suggests can be considered, and accepted or rejected, on their merits. And the abort joke case illustrates that in fact he is not given such authority, when package developers are confident to stand up to claims he makes of authority, and provides an example that can speed up the rejection of any such assertion of authority to micromanage things that might be made in future. I agree with the conclusion of Nathan's original message, that RMS behaves in a toxic way, it is harmful to have him listed as being in a leadership role that might suggest what he does is acceptable within the project, and he should not be on the SC. This is based on the longstanding, well-documented patterns of how he has misbehaved towards women, *not* on the opinions he has expressed on other subjects, *not* on his choices regarding the use of language, *not* on his attempts to insist on language being used in particular ways, and *not* on where or when he has chosen to express such views. For the same reasons, I think it is harmful for him to be Chief GNUisance (but as above, I think GNU packages should not give a Chief GNUisance authority to micromanage decisions, beyond ensuring GNU packages follow basic GNU free software principles and cooperate with each other and with their development communities), harmful for him to be on the FSF board, and harmful for him to be seen as leader of the free software movement. (For the last point, I don't think the free software movement needs a single leader; it needs many people advocating free software, and discussing issues related to free software, from diverse perspectives. RMS's ideas that form the foundation of the free software movement are still of fundamental importance today. But other people can now build better on those ideas in today's context.) RMS does not, in fact, contribute usefully to the SC. Any time he suggests some feature for GCC, whether a good or a bad idea, that could be done just as well on the public mailing list (which would be a better place to find someone possibly interested in implementing a feature, and to discuss a feature's merits, in any case) without being an SC member. He's sufficiently far removed from toolchain development that he's not good at making reasonable suggestions for toolchain changes in any case. We can consider individual proposals or patches from anyone on their merits. We can have leaders who are accepted as leaders because contributors can see their relevant expertise that gives them legitimacy as leaders, and can see a good basis for decisions they make as leaders. But longstanding patterns of bad conduct by a leader, even when formally unrelated to the project, can reach the point where considering that person a leader is harmful to the project. I think the ways RMS has behaved have long since reached the point where it is harmful for him to be considered a leader for GCC or GNU, and that's sufficient to stop considering him a leader (even if he were sufficiently involved to be able to contribute much more usefully on a technical level). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 12:09 PM > From: "Ian Lance Taylor" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: "Soul Studios" , "GCC Development" > , "Mark Wielaard" , "Nathan Sidwell" > > Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 4:33 PM Christopher Dimech via Gcc > wrote: > > > > Here is something close to the fundamental issue: Believing in private life, > > that people are entitled to their own associations and opinions (even bad > > ones!), > > and entitled to make their own mistakes, too — and that, barring some direct > > connection to work life or extraordinary circumstance, that none of this is > > the concern of the little platoons of finks lurking in the community, > > particularly when driven by facebook lackeys muzzling everyday journalists > > who go against the grain. We see this not only here but also to medical > > information dealing with coronavirus and vaccines. > > Please work to avoid using terms like "finks" or "lackeys" when > describing members of the GCC community. Please be respectful of > other people's opinions. Thanks. > > The question here is not whether RMS is permitted to contribute to > GCC. I have not seen anybody arguing against that. The question is > whether the GCC community should put him in a declared leadership > position. For a leadership position, which serves as an example for > the community and to some extent demonstrates the values shared by the > community, I think it is reasonable that there is a decreased > expectation of privacy. It is an unrealistic expectation. I could understand such attitudes towards Harvey Weinstein and the like. But now the scalp-hunting has started to target ordinary and often obscure people, and the offenses in question have nothing to do with bigotry — it is simply having the unfashionable view of a public controversy, or being somehow associated, however lightly with that controversy. You might say that the fullness of Thomas Jefferson’s legacy should be acknowledged, but he did a bit more with his life than own slaves, just as the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. did more with his time on earth than cheat on his wife and Mohandas Gandhi did more than write racist tracts about black Africans. We remember those men, and celebrate them, for other things. > Ian >
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
On 2021-03-29 17:39, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote: You might say that the fullness of Thomas Jefferson's legacy should be acknowledged, but he did a bit more with his life than own slaves, just as the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. did more with his time on earth than cheat on his wife and Mohandas Gandhi did more than write racist tracts about black Africans. We remember those men, and celebrate them, for other things. This is irrelevant to the discussion as to whether RMS should be member of GCC SC and whether or not the SC should make a public statement regarding the matter, one way or the other. The individuals you cite are all long dead, their entire history and legacy can be and is evaluated as much in the context of the time in which they lived as it is in the time in which we live now, with all the changes in social norms and standards that that entails. Stallman will no doubt be judged in a similar manner by history; founding the Free Software movement - good, the impact of his abusive and misogynistic behavior which (at best) belongs to another time - probably not so good. The question is, in this time, right now, is that specific last bit there. Is that the legacy that the GCC project and it's community of contributors (and by contributors, I mean those that actively currently do so) by continued association, wants for itself? I fully support the idea that the Steering Committee ought to make a definitive statement in that regard, one way or the other. Active contributors can then make whatever decisions they deem necessary based on that information.
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 12:20 PM > From: "Joseph Myers" > To: "Mark Wielaard" > Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell" > Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee > > On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > > He does indeed show up randomly claiming authority even if the GNU > > community has told him no. And it is important to say upfront he has > > no authority and that his attempts to cancel the work of hardworking > > GNU contributors is unwelcome. IMHO for the GCC community this means > > to be explicit he doesn't have any authority and he shouldn't be on > > the GCC steering committee. > > For example, consider the October 2019 discussion on libc-alpha of > removing the abort "joke" from the glibc manual. We rejected RMS's claims > of authority to say that the joke should be kept, or kept indefinitely > until various general points could be decided, and removed it from the > manual anyway without waiting for conclusions on all those general points. > > RMS only has authority over decisions taken about individual GNU packages > where the people developing those packages let him have that authority and > make or refrain from making changes based on what he says. We should not > give him such authority by treating his views as having some significance > not given to such views expressed by other people; changes he suggests can > be considered, and accepted or rejected, on their merits. And the abort > joke case illustrates that in fact he is not given such authority, when > package developers are confident to stand up to claims he makes of > authority, and provides an example that can speed up the rejection of any > such assertion of authority to micromanage things that might be made in > future. > > I agree with the conclusion of Nathan's original message, that RMS behaves > in a toxic way, it is harmful to have him listed as being in a leadership > role that might suggest what he does is acceptable within the project, and > he should not be on the SC. Insofar as Stallman is the foundation of all authority, He exercises that foundation because He is the founder of His own work. He is the foundation upon which all other authority stands or falls. We use the term foundation with respect to the imagery of a building - houses and commercial buildings are erected upon a foundation. To say that Stallman defended Epstein for comments he made about his former teacher are from an oceanic distance. The person who really had ties with Epstein was Bill Gates, who, instructed Bill Gates to donate $2 million to MIT. Stallman simply did not take into account the era of diminishing freedom (not only in the digital world). Nowadays, with the left (communist) thought police, who are always on the lookout for any subject to fire their cannons on, free speech could be gone. If an opinion expressed goes against the prevailing inquisition of the time, the subject and the person is in hot waters. Well, screw the inquisition. Seems like World War I has just begun and martial law has been declared, and this is reason enough, it seems, to expel the firebrand without much ado, so he can eventually end up in concentration camps in Egypt. > This is based on the longstanding, > well-documented patterns of how he has misbehaved towards women, *not* on > the opinions he has expressed on other subjects, *not* on his choices > regarding the use of language, *not* on his attempts to insist on language > being used in particular ways, and *not* on where or when he has chosen to > express such views. > > For the same reasons, I think it is harmful for him to be Chief GNUisance > (but as above, I think GNU packages should not give a Chief GNUisance > authority to micromanage decisions, beyond ensuring GNU packages follow > basic GNU free software principles and cooperate with each other and with > their development communities), harmful for him to be on the FSF board, > and harmful for him to be seen as leader of the free software movement. > (For the last point, I don't think the free software movement needs a > single leader; it needs many people advocating free software, and > discussing issues related to free software, from diverse perspectives. > RMS's ideas that form the foundation of the free software movement are > still of fundamental importance today. But other people can now build > better on those ideas in today's context.) > > RMS does not, in fact, contribute usefully to the SC. Any time he > suggests some feature for GCC, whether a good or a bad idea, that could be > done just as well on the public mailing list (which would be a better > place to find someone possibly interested in implementing a feature, and > to discuss a feature's merits, in any case) without being an SC member. > He's sufficiently far removed from toolchain development that he's not > good at making reasonable suggestions for toolchain changes in any case. > > We can consider individual proposal
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 1:30 PM > From: "Thomas Rodgers" > To: "Ian Lance Taylor" , "GCC Development" > , "Mark Wielaard" , "Nathan Sidwell" > > Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee > > On 2021-03-29 17:39, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote: > > > > You might say that the fullness of Thomas Jefferson's legacy should be > > acknowledged, but he did a bit more with his life than own slaves, just > > as the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. did more with his time on earth > > than cheat on his wife and Mohandas Gandhi did more than write racist > > tracts about black Africans. We remember those men, and celebrate > > them, > > for other things. > > This is irrelevant to the discussion as to whether RMS should be member > of GCC SC and whether or not the SC should make a public statement > regarding the matter, one way or the other. The individuals you cite are > all long dead, their entire history and legacy can be and is evaluated > as much in the context of the time in which they lived as it is in the > time in which we live now, with all the changes in social norms and > standards that that entails. Stallman will no doubt be judged in a > similar manner by history; founding the Free Software movement - good, > the impact of his abusive and misogynistic behavior which (at best) > belongs to another time - probably not so good. I followed an interview he had with Dr. Diane Hamilton, and one cannot say he was prejudiced against her. I have had my own problems with women in higher up positions that expect they can act to any level of irresponsibility as some men have done. I thus consider women simply as people. > The question is, in this time, right now, is that specific last bit > there. Is that the legacy that the GCC project and it's community of > contributors (and by contributors, I mean those that actively currently > do so) by continued association, wants for itself? > > I fully support the idea that the Steering Committee ought to make a > definitive statement in that regard, one way or the other. Active > contributors can then make whatever decisions they deem necessary based > on that information. >
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
Joseph, On Mar 29, 2021, Joseph Myers wrote: > This is based on the longstanding, > well-documented patterns of how he has misbehaved towards women, I have a great deal of respect for your attention to detail. I can hardly believe you would make such a claim without having actually looked into available evidence and cross-checked it. Yet your claim is either (a) misleading or (b) conflicting with findings by others who did so. (a) is a distinct possibility, since many people may legitimately claim RMS has been rude or harsh towards themselves, regardless of gender, and that can be exaggerated into misbehavior, and made misleading by phrasing it as if it was directed to any specific demographics. (b) would surprise me, given how extensively evidence has been looked into by myself and others. I request that, if you found anything that holds up to your high standards of evidence-checking, you submit it to the voting members of the FSF, so that we can look into it and take appropriate action. Thanks in advance, -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
