Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
On Sun, 4 Apr 2021, 00:46 Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc, wrote: > On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:31 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote: > > > > But apparently you cannot decide which US-corporation should be thrown. > > (indeed US-corporations hold the vast majoirity of SC heads, right now). > As it clearly says on the steering committee page, appointments are personal, not based on employer. One SC members just moved job but didn't lose his SC position, because it's him and not his employer who is on the committee. > I don't understand this argument. If we remove everybody from the > committee, then it will be more balanced in some sense, but there > won't be anybody on it. If you want a more balanced committee, then > at some point you have to talk about adding people. > > And I do think it would make sense to add more people to the > committee. Any suggestions? They should of course be people > reasonably familiar with GCC and with free software, and with > compilers and software development tools. And if you don't allow anybody from big US or German corporations, you're going to have to keep kicking experienced people off the committee and replacing them with inexperienced people. That's because experienced, dedicated contributors tend to get hired to keep working on the project. I was an unpaid volunteer and maintainer for years before I got hired to work on GCC. Was I doing good work at first, then became a pawn of evil business? No, because your arguments are silly (and I don't even think they're in good faith, I think you're just being a Concern Troll because you're upset about the removal of RMS).
Re: GCC 10.3 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
On 03/04/2021 22:12, Richard Copley wrote: On Windows, linking two C++ translation units that both #include results in errors about multiple definition of the weak function __dummy_resume_destroy. This can be avoided by cherry-picking commit 94fd05f1f76faca9dc9033b55d44c960155d38e9 [PR 95917]. I will construct a bugzilla report. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99907
Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
Ian, with all respect with your personal history, your contributions and choices, I think you are still missing the point. On April 3, 2021 11:45:23 PM UTC, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > But you have singled out removing RMS (who as David noted was never > really a member of the committee anyhow) as a particular problem. > Let's not forget that RMS is an American. Indeed. It's important to note that I'm not, in any way, arguing against Americans in GCC (as somebody is trying to frame what I wrote). I'm scared by the dangerous influence that dangeours US corporations and a dangerous military nation with a long history of human rights violations (see Snowden's and Assange's revelations and the ongoing Assange's trial) HAVE over the GCC development. It's not just matter of actual backdoors or priviledged access to zero-days: it's mainly a soft power that can influence development of GCC by slowing down or fastening certain features, as you explained the SC did in several occasions (the Nathan's libcody, the plugin framework and many other that were too subtle to catch from outside the Steering Committee). We are all seasoned developers. We know how this sort of politics can influence software development. We all know that technology is a prosecution of politics by other means. > So the imbalance you mention was there already. Except that the President of FSF (and Chief GNUissance himself) was receiving copy of all the communications of the Steering Committee. I think we do agree that FSF and RMS are really trustworthy when it comes to protect Free Software interests. After all, FSF is the most credible no-profit dedicated to this goal. > And you are confusing my employer with my free software work. No. Simply, I work in the field since two decades myself. Thus, I'm not naive enough to ignore the thousands way your employee can get huge advantages by having you in the GCC's Steering Committee. As a small example among many many others, you are using a @google.com mail address while serving in the Steering Committee. > > But that's the fact with priviledge: if you have it, you can't see > > it. > > I'm sure that's largely true. And I'm well aware that I have enormous > amounts of privilege. > > But you write that statement as though it contradicts something that I > said. It doesn't. It doesn't contraddict what you said, indeed. On the contrary, it explains WHY you are debating against an urgent fix to the GCC Steering Committee on my request, while you had no problem to promptly remove Stallman on Nathan's request. You care more about the sensibility of those that share Nathan's values and interests (that are pretty similar to your own), than about the huge threat that a Steering Committee deeply influenced and controlled by US corporations with long ties to the US Department of Defence constitutea. Maybe this will attract more US people (or likely-minded ones), but for sure, it will pose a huge burden on everybody outside the US to contribute and even use GCC. I would NOT feel safe to contribute my port to GCC, right now. I don't feel safe to even rely on GCC for anything. > > > This is free software. If you want to make it better, then make > > > it better. [...] So prove me wrong. Do the work. > > > > This is plain old open source rhetoric. > > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html > > No, it really isn't. > > The point of free software is to provide freedom. True, but naively stated. Software Freedom is way more than "it works, to free". And Freedom itself is more than lack of constraints, but autonomy, agency and self-determination. What Free Software is (and what it is not) has been clearly defined here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html If it's not what you mean by "free software", I'd suggest you to use different terms. Maybe "open source" will do. But let's not replicate 30 years of debate here (and thousands years of phylosophical debate on freedom) and focus on GNU Compiler Collection. > > But you can see how flawed this argument is by comparing it with > > your own words: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235269.html > > > > RMS was actively contributing to the Steering Committee without > > contributing a single line of code since years. > > > > So you proved that you (and open source rhetoric) are wrong. > > I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. I think I was > pretty clear in that e-mail message that RMS was not actively > contributing to the steering committee. You said you involved him in SC discussions. You said you treated him as a member of the Steering Committee. Thus he WAS serving as a member of the GCC's Steering Committee. To me, his oversight on your discussions looked as a serious guarantee in the protection of interests of the _global_ Free Software movement. > And, even if he was, so what? I agree that lots of work on GCC and > other free software projects has noth
Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
> I'm scared by the dangerous influence that dangeours US corporations > and a dangerous military nation with a long history of human rights > violations (see Snowden's and Assange's revelations and the ongoing > Assange's trial) HAVE over the GCC development. I agree that that's a concern, but the point being made is that the SC is not relevant to this because they, as a practial matter, have almost no influence on GCC development. GCC development is mostly influenced by those companies that pay people to work on GCC. It is a fact that most of these are US corporations. But the only way to change that is to encourage companies that are *not* in the US to contribute too. > Except that the President of FSF (and Chief GNUissance himself) was > receiving copy of all the communications of the Steering Committee. Do we know this as a fact? I don't know whether that's the case or not, but I've read this entire thread and have seen no evidence either way on that issue. In any event, I suspect that the "all communications" may be less than a few dozen emails a year, although that's only a guess on my part. > Thus, I'm not naive enough to ignore the thousands way your employee > can get huge advantages by having you in the GCC's Steering Committee. Thousands? Given how little the SC actually *does*, I find it hard to come up with any meaningful advantages at all, let alone "huge" ones. > As a small example among many many others, you are using a @google.com > mail address while serving in the Steering Committee. So? How many emails per year do SC members send on behalf of the SC? As far as I see, it averages maybe two per year, all of which are announcements of new or changed maintainers of components of GCC. > On the contrary, it explains WHY you are debating against an urgent > fix to the GCC Steering Committee on my request, while you had no > problem to promptly remove Stallman on Nathan's request. Again, the position taken was that RMS was never *on* the SC to begin with. > You said you involved him in SC discussions. > You said you treated him as a member of the Steering Committee. You're missing the point here. The role of the SC is to act as the official maintainer of GCC. The official maintainer of a GNU project coordinates things with the GNU project (a tautology). RMS is indeed involved in those communications (which I suspect are quite rare), but as a representative of the GNU project, *not* of the GCC SC.
Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
Thanks Kenner... On April 4, 2021 1:49:57 PM UTC, ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote: > > I'm scared by the dangerous influence that dangeours US corporations > > and a dangerous military nation with a long history of human rights > > violations (see Snowden's and Assange's revelations and the ongoing > > Assange's trial) HAVE over the GCC development. > > I agree that that's a concern ... at least this is a step forward. :-) > but the point being made is that the SC is not relevant to this > because they, as a practial matter, have almost no influence on GCC > development. Yet enough to slow down certain developments such as Nathan's libcody or the plugin framework. > GCC development is mostly influenced by those companies that pay > people to work on GCC. It is a fact that most of these are US > corporations. But the only way to change that is to encourage > companies that are *not* in the US to contribute too. False: it's not the only way. You can also put trustworthy and credible observers to protect the interests of the global Free Software movement. Stallman serving in the Steering Committee, had such function. So far, what I've read in these threads makes me doubt he was actually paying attention to GCC, but if the SC workload was as light as you say, I'm reasaured he probably was. > > Except that the President of FSF (and Chief GNUissance himself) was > > receiving copy of all the communications of the Steering Committee. > > Do we know this as a fact? Ian wrote so in his response to Nathan. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235269.html > > You said you involved him in SC discussions. > > You said you treated him as a member of the Steering Committee. > > You're missing the point here. The role of the SC is to act as the > official maintainer of GCC. The official maintainer of a GNU project > coordinates things with the GNU project (a tautology). RMS is indeed > involved in those communications (which I suspect are quite rare), but > as a representative of the GNU project, *not* of the GCC SC. What I have to say for you to understand that I'm NOT arguing here for RMS? The removal of Stallman revealed a huge issue in GCC. Maybe you can't see it. Maybe you don't want to see it. But it's evident to any seasoned programmer outside the US. It's like when you fix an UI glitch and you uncover a terrible consinstency bug causing a severe data corruption that is ongoing on your database and that the glitch was hiding. I did not request to put back the UI glitch. I asked to fix the Steering Committee. Don't you want to? Fine! Everybody can draw their conclusion. Giacomo
Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2021 at 1:10 AM > From: "Giacomo Tesio" > To: "Ian Lance Taylor" > Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell" > Subject: Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee > > Ian, > > with all respect with your personal history, your contributions and > choices, I think you are still missing the point. > > > On April 3, 2021 11:45:23 PM UTC, Ian Lance Taylor > wrote: > > But you have singled out removing RMS (who as David noted was never > > really a member of the committee anyhow) as a particular problem. > > Let's not forget that RMS is an American. > > Indeed. > It's important to note that I'm not, in any way, arguing against > Americans in GCC (as somebody is trying to frame what I wrote). > > I'm scared by the dangerous influence that dangeours US corporations > and a dangerous military nation with a long history of human rights > violations (see Snowden's and Assange's revelations and the ongoing > Assange's trial) HAVE over the GCC development. > > > It's not just matter of actual backdoors or priviledged access to > zero-days: it's mainly a soft power that can influence development of > GCC by slowing down or fastening certain features, as you explained the > SC did in several occasions (the Nathan's libcody, the plugin framework > and many other that were too subtle to catch from outside the Steering > Committee). > > We are all seasoned developers. > We know how this sort of politics can influence software development. > > We all know that technology is a prosecution of politics by other means. > > > > So the imbalance you mention was there already. > > Except that the President of FSF (and Chief GNUissance himself) was > receiving copy of all the communications of the Steering Committee. > > I think we do agree that FSF and RMS are really trustworthy when > it comes to protect Free Software interests. > > After all, FSF is the most credible no-profit dedicated to this goal. > > > > And you are confusing my employer with my free software work. It is acceptable to do free software work, irrespective of the actions of your employer. Although one realises that there could be greater scrutiny on your work. People would be entitled to question certain actions and dig deeper than usual because of conflicts of interests or allegiances that have previously been documented in other cases. For instance the Chaos Computer Club France (CCCF) was a fake hacker organisation under the command of Directorate of Territorial Surveillance and the Armed Forces of the French Government. > No. > > Simply, I work in the field since two decades myself. > > Thus, I'm not naive enough to ignore the thousands way your employee > can get huge advantages by having you in the GCC's Steering Committee. > > As a small example among many many others, you are using a @google.com > mail address while serving in the Steering Committee. It is a personal decision and choice what type of computing or services one uses. That does net stop anybody developing free software. Although the best way is to lead "by example", it is a mistake to demand that one you cannot do any work within a committee if you do not set a strict policy for everything one does. Similarly, it is a mistake to disengage Richard Stallman because of personal views that he may hold. One could for instance take the extreme position towards Stallman by stating that it is wrong to use boycott all free software that have ever been produced as a result of his work, because of his behaviour. For instance, it was a mistake for MIT to remove all online courses on physics that he had done. This is equivalent to censorship, banning, and book burning in Nazi Germany. Only idiots or evil beings do such things. > > > But that's the fact with priviledge: if you have it, you can't see > > > it. > > > > I'm sure that's largely true. And I'm well aware that I have enormous > > amounts of privilege. > > > > But you write that statement as though it contradicts something that I > > said. It doesn't. > > It doesn't contraddict what you said, indeed. > > On the contrary, it explains WHY you are debating against an urgent > fix to the GCC Steering Committee on my request, while you had no > problem to promptly remove Stallman on Nathan's request. > > You care more about the sensibility of those that share Nathan's values > and interests (that are pretty similar to your own), than about the huge > threat that a Steering Committee deeply influenced and controlled by > US corporations with long ties to the US Department of Defence > constitutea. > > > Maybe this will attract more US people (or likely-minded ones), but for > sure, it will pose a huge burden on everybody outside the US to > contribute and even use GCC. > > I would NOT feel safe to contribute my port to GCC, right now. > I don't feel safe to even rely on GCC for anything. > > > > > > This is free software. If you want to make it better, then make > > > > it better. [...] So prov
Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2021 at 1:10 AM > From: "Giacomo Tesio" > To: "Ian Lance Taylor" > Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell" > Subject: Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee > > Ian, > > with all respect with your personal history, your contributions and > choices, I think you are still missing the point. > > > On April 3, 2021 11:45:23 PM UTC, Ian Lance Taylor > wrote: > > But you have singled out removing RMS (who as David noted was never > > really a member of the committee anyhow) as a particular problem. > > Let's not forget that RMS is an American. > > Indeed. > It's important to note that I'm not, in any way, arguing against > Americans in GCC (as somebody is trying to frame what I wrote). > > I'm scared by the dangerous influence that dangeours US corporations > and a dangerous military nation with a long history of human rights > violations (see Snowden's and Assange's revelations and the ongoing > Assange's trial) HAVE over the GCC development. > > > It's not just matter of actual backdoors or priviledged access to > zero-days: it's mainly a soft power that can influence development of > GCC by slowing down or fastening certain features, as you explained the > SC did in several occasions (the Nathan's libcody, the plugin framework > and many other that were too subtle to catch from outside the Steering > Committee). > > We are all seasoned developers. > We know how this sort of politics can influence software development. > > We all know that technology is a prosecution of politics by other means. > > > > So the imbalance you mention was there already. > > Except that the President of FSF (and Chief GNUissance himself) was > receiving copy of all the communications of the Steering Committee. > > I think we do agree that FSF and RMS are really trustworthy when > it comes to protect Free Software interests. > > After all, FSF is the most credible no-profit dedicated to this goal. > > > > And you are confusing my employer with my free software work. It is acceptable to do free software work, irrespective of the actions of your employer. Although one realises that there could be greater scrutiny on your work. People would be entitled to question certain actions and dig deeper than usual because of conflicts of interests or allegiances that have previously been documented in other cases. For instance the Chaos Computer Club France (CCCF) was a fake hacker organisation under the command of Directorate of Territorial Surveillance and the Armed Forces of the French Government. > No. > > Simply, I work in the field since two decades myself. > > Thus, I'm not naive enough to ignore the thousands way your employee > can get huge advantages by having you in the GCC's Steering Committee. > > As a small example among many many others, you are using a @google.com > mail address while serving in the Steering Committee. It is a personal decision and choice what type of computing or services one uses. That does net stop anybody developing free software. Although the best way is to lead "by example", it is a mistake to demand that one you cannot do any work within a committee if you do not set a strict policy for everything one does. Similarly, it is a mistake to disengage Richard Stallman because of personal views that he may hold. One could for instance take the extreme position towards Stallman by stating that it is wrong to use boycott all free software that have ever been produced as a result of his work, because of his behaviour. For instance, it was a mistake for MIT to remove all online courses on physics that he had done. This is equivalent to censorship, banning, and book burning in Nazi Germany. Only idiots or evil beings do such things. I was discussing the case of Walter Lewin in the previous paragraph. > > > But that's the fact with priviledge: if you have it, you can't see > > > it. > > > > I'm sure that's largely true. And I'm well aware that I have enormous > > amounts of privilege. > > > > But you write that statement as though it contradicts something that I > > said. It doesn't. > > It doesn't contraddict what you said, indeed. > > On the contrary, it explains WHY you are debating against an urgent > fix to the GCC Steering Committee on my request, while you had no > problem to promptly remove Stallman on Nathan's request. > > You care more about the sensibility of those that share Nathan's values > and interests (that are pretty similar to your own), than about the huge > threat that a Steering Committee deeply influenced and controlled by > US corporations with long ties to the US Department of Defence > constitutea. > > > Maybe this will attract more US people (or likely-minded ones), but for > sure, it will pose a huge burden on everybody outside the US to > contribute and even use GCC. > > I would NOT feel safe to contribute my port to GCC, right now. > I don't feel safe to even rely on GCC for anything. > > > > > > This is free software. I
Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
> Yet enough to slow down certain developments such as Nathan's libcody > or the plugin framework. The SC had no role in that, as was discussed here. > You can also put trustworthy and credible observers to protect the > interests of the global Free Software movement. How is an "observer" going to influence which people are willing to spend their time developing software and how much time they're willing spend? As a practical matter, the direction of any Free Software project is dictated by those who actually work on it from day to day and who pays for their time, not by groups like the SC or the maintainers. > > > Except that the President of FSF (and Chief GNUissance himself) was > > > receiving copy of all the communications of the Steering Committee. > > > > Do we know this as a fact? > > Ian wrote so in his response to Nathan. > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235269.html That says he was "involved in SC discussions", which to me, means that he *didn't* get a copy of all their communications. If somebody says they're a member of the XYZ committee and "involved Bob in our discussions", to me, that means that Bob is *not* in the committee and doesn't get all committee communications, but that they chose to involve him in some of their discussions. > The removal of Stallman revealed a huge issue in GCC. > Maybe you can't see it. Maybe you don't want to see it. > But it's evident to any seasoned programmer outside the US. I just don't see it as a "removal". RMS is still in charge of the GNU project. That means that he, at some level, is involved in every GNU project, including GCC. As a practical matter, that involvement was very slight and still is. I don't see any change whatsoever in the day-to-day operations of GCC.
Re: GCC 10.3 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
On Sun, 4 Apr 2021, 12:40 Richard Copley, wrote: > On 03/04/2021 22:12, Richard Copley wrote: > On Windows, linking two C++ translation units that both #include > results in errors about multiple definition of the weak > function __dummy_resume_destroy. This can be avoided by cherry-picking > commit 94fd05f1f76faca9dc9033b55d44c960155d38e9 [PR 95917]. > > > I will construct a bugzilla report. > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99907 Thanks! > >
Re: GCC 10.3 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 14:35, Richard Biener wrote: > > > The first release candidate for GCC 10.3 is available from > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.3.0-RC-20210401/ > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.3.0-RC-20210401/ > > and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit > 892024d4af83b258801ff7484bf28f0cf1a1a999. > > I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on > x86_64-linux. Please test it and report any issues to bugzilla. > > If all goes well, I'd like to release 10.3 on Thursday, April 8th. Hi, Last week I committed Richard Earnshaw's fix for PR target/99773), which affects gcc-10 (sorry I didn't check that when I filed the PR, I just realized later that 10.3 was so close to release). I think it would be desirable to backport the patch to gcc-10: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=6f93a7c7fc62b2d6ab47e5d5eb60d41366e1ee9e Is that too late? Thanks Christophe
gcc-11-20210404 is now available
Snapshot gcc-11-20210404 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20210404/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch master revision c3d3bb0f03dbd02512ab46979088ee8e22520c24 You'll find: gcc-11-20210404.tar.xz Complete GCC SHA256=4edf1f427601053409ca895bd546d2e76640d064df43e5e7fec794ecabedb509 SHA1=ae98718425afc05792ea37b3791d777dc7288401 Diffs from 11-20210328 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-11 link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list. Please do not use a snapshot before it has been announced that way.
Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 6:11 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote: > > with all respect with your personal history, your contributions and > choices, I think you are still missing the point. This conversation is going on circles. You do not seem to hear what I am saying, and you are telling me that I am not hearing what you are saying. There doesn't seem to be much point to continuing. I'll just reply to one minor point. > Thus, I'm not naive enough to ignore the thousands way your employee > can get huge advantages by having you in the GCC's Steering Committee. My employer truly doesn't care whether I am on the GCC steering committee. My employer no longer uses GCC. It uses LLVM. (Now you can spin that into a conspiracy theory that I am somehow taking Google's direction to leverage my membership on the GCC steering committee to slow down GCC development.) Ian
Re: GCC 10.3 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
On April 4, 2021 10:26:37 PM GMT+02:00, Christophe Lyon wrote: >On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 14:35, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> >> The first release candidate for GCC 10.3 is available from >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.3.0-RC-20210401/ >> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.3.0-RC-20210401/ >> >> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit >> 892024d4af83b258801ff7484bf28f0cf1a1a999. >> >> I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on >> x86_64-linux. Please test it and report any issues to bugzilla. >> >> If all goes well, I'd like to release 10.3 on Thursday, April 8th. > > >Hi, > >Last week I committed Richard Earnshaw's fix for PR target/99773), >which affects gcc-10 (sorry I didn't check that when I filed the PR, >I just realized later that 10.3 was so close to release). > >I think it would be desirable to backport the patch to gcc-10: >https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=6f93a7c7fc62b2d6ab47e5d5eb60d41366e1ee9e > >Is that too late? Since it doesn't appear to be a regression it should wait until after 10.3. Richard. >Thanks > >Christophe
