GCC 11.0.1 Status Report (2021-04-09)
Status == GCC trunk which is to become GCC 11 is in regression and documentation fixes only mode. We're nearing the date planned for branching and releasing GCC 11 but as usual the goal is to have zero release blockers (aka P1 priority regressions) before doing so. Please help in addressing the last remaining ones but do not hesitate to continue testing and filing bugreports for new issues you find. Quality Data Priority # Change from last report --- --- P18 - 9 P2 266 - 22 P3 31 - 6 P4 199 + 7 P5 24 --- --- Total P1-P3 305 - 37 Total 528 - 30 Previous Report === https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235022.html
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On 09/04/2021 08:37, John Darrington wrote: > > Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed > anyone as "mein Führer". I think he would be very much concerned if anyone > tried to confer a cult hero status on him. > > Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to step > down as leader of GNU. Rather than calling for his head on a block it > would be more constructive to think to the future. Unfortunately to date, > I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities necessary > to take over the role. > And I don't think people (at least, not many) are "calling for his head". My thought is that he should be encouraged to step down from all his positions within GNU, FSF, gcc, and any other projects he is involved with. Retire now, while he can do so with dignity and without harm to the free and open source software worlds. It is only if it is left too late that people will be /forced/ to call for his head. You can be very sure that complaints about his behaviour and attitudes will not diminish - they will grow, and the result will not be good for RMS, GNU, gcc, users, developers, or anyone else except the sellers of tabloid newspapers. I would rather see him leave quietly now with respect, than be hounded out later and his statues pulled down - along with the careers and reputations of many who work with him. (I am not saying that such a destruction would be correct or appropriate - I am saying it will happen in the end if the free software community is not careful.) (I agree that there are few, if any, people who had the qualities of RMS to do the job he did. But IMHO that role is over - we don't need someone to fill his shoes.) David Brown
Re: GCC association with the FSF
Gabriel Ravier via Gcc writes: > RMS is not indispensible because he does not contribute to GCC and > doesn't bring much to it, and otherwise takes more away from it. If > you were to remove all of Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan you would > be removing ~13% of active contribution to GCC (counting in > commits). If you also remove all the major contributors that are from > corporations (counting a major contributor as someone with 10 or more > commits), you're removing ~63% of active contribution. If you also > remove the major organizations contributing to GCC, like Adacore and > the GDC project, you're removing ~18% more of active contribution, > meaning you're left with 19% of active contribution. While I do not > doubt that all of the contributors that would remain are talented > individuals, GCC would undoubtedly, in the best case, heavily suffer > from the loss of 3 to 4 fifths of active contribution and become much > less appealing as a compiler, and in the worst case simply die > out. While each of the individuals forming any of those groups aren't > indispensable, as a group, they certainly are indispensible to GCC > unless you think GCC can really survive with 3/5 times less > contributions to it. What is this man? Are you trying to compute the probability of survival a project? You forgot to count me. I am one of the users of GCC. If there are no users then the project is dead; however heavyweight the maintainers are. And let me also tell you the truth. I have looked at the list of maintainers and the steering committee for the first time, when this thread was started. My reason for sticking to GCC is FSF and associated cause. Not the above list of people. Those who are not connected with the cause have already started migrating to the competing tools.
Copyright Assignment Form
Hello, everyone. I'd like to contribute to the gccrs project (https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs) and they require contributions to have copyright assignment in place. Could you please tell me what I should do and send me the relevant forms? Thank you in advance. Ruihan Li
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 6:37 PM > From: "John Darrington" > To: "David Malcolm" > Cc: g...@gnu.org, "Alfred M. Szmidt" , "Mark Wielaard" > > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:35:23PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > > RMS was the first person to be involved in GNU and GCC. Others > > became > > involved later (under his leadership). Their contribution was and > > continues to be welcome. They are also free to stop contributing any > > time they wish to do so. > > I intend to continue contributing to GCC (and to Free Software in > general), but RMS is not my leader. RMS never sent me an Allegiance Oath. > Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed > anyone as "mein Führer". I think he would be very much concerned if anyone > tried to confer a cult hero status on him. > > Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to step > down as leader of GNU. Rather than calling for his head on a block it > would be more constructive to think to the future. Unfortunately to date, > I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities necessary > to take over the role. > > > > Then why do you write this from your employer's email? > > My employer gives me permission. > > That's good to know. My employer on the other hand expressly forbids it. > And I think that is a reasonable prohibition (we're allowed to use their > internet connection for personal use) but not allowed to use the company > name (including email addresses) in personal communication. Even if they > didn't prohibit this, I wouldn't dream of using my company's email or > letterhead for personal communication. > > Given the reaction that some have faced for questioning RMS, I'd prefer > to keep that address private. > > So in other words, you are happy to make contraversial statements, but don't > wish to face the responsibility. Come on David! By all means question RMS > (or anyone else) but have the guts to do this under your own identity rather > than duck in and out behind a veil of quasi-anonymity! My address is public. David, if you did not like my reaction, I would not say that you hesitated in making disparaging comments. But am not against using your freedem of speech to see what is going on. But tho philosophy that is guiding the utterances against RMS by left wing totalitarians is the same philosophy of that of Mao Zedong - "Life is shit and then you die!". > I'm glad that you're going to continue to contribute to GCC. > > J' >
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> On Apr 9, 2021, at 2:27 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt via Gcc wrote: > > These discussions are slightly off topic for gcc@, I'd suggest they > are moved to gnu-misc-discuss@ or some other more suitable list. More than "slightly", in my view. I'm close to putting this thread into my "send straight to trash" mail rule. The alternative would be to unsubscribe gcc, which it would be nice to avoid. paul
Re: Question about reading LTO function summaries
Hi, On Tue, Apr 06 2021, Erick Ochoa wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 26 2021, Erick Ochoa via Gcc wrote: >> > I already have some experience developing SIMPLE_IPA_PASSes, but I am >> > looking to understand IPA_PASSes better. I have made a hello world ipa >> > pass that stores "hello world $FUNCTION_NAME" in the function >> > summaries; however, I am having trouble reading this information back. >> > Can someone help me understand how to use these interfaces correctly? >> > >> > At the moment, it **seems** to be writing information correctly. >> > (I.e., it doesn't segfault when attempting to write data.) However, in >> > my read summary function (ipa_hello_world_read_summary (void)) the >> > function `lto_get_summary_section_data (file_data, >> > LTO_section_ipa_hello_world, &len);` always returns NULL and >> > `file_data_vec` is of size 1. This means that at run time, there is >> > only one call to `lto_get_summary_section_data` and it returns NULL. >> >> I looked at the code you posted and compared it with streaming in >> ipa-sra.c and did not spot any difference that could result in this >> behavior. >> >> You can try and send the whole patch (hopefully a hello world pass would >> not be too large) and I can have a look. > > thanks for taking some time to help me. I think I accidentally deleted > the original hello world pass, but I have re-made it and I still have > the same problem. I copy paste the patch at the bottom. First, please either send patches as attachments or use an email client which does not corrupt the patch format. What you sent had some spaces removed and long lines clipped, which meant I had to manually fix it to try it. Doable for patch this small but if it was even a tiny bit bigger, I would have to ask you to resend it. Second, your problem seems to be that you are missing an entry in lto_section_name in lto-section-in.c that would correspond to the one you added to lto_section_type. You also forgot to copy calls to lto_free_section_data and lto_data_in_delete which means that subsequent attempts to stream stuff in them then ICE. The streaming API, especially the code setting it all up, is fairly horrible, which is a known issue. New IPA passes are however added only seldom, which means the incentive to clean it up is fairly low, unfortunately. Martin
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 at 07:30, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > These discussions are slightly off topic for gcc@, I'd suggest they > are moved to gnu-misc-discuss@ or some other more suitable list. That list is precisely the toxic cesspit that makes me want to have nothing more to do with GNU, ever. My current expectation is that after the GCC 11 release my contributions to GCC will be pushed to a Git repo somewhere other than gcc.gnu.org and I will not be assigning copyright to FSF. I'm done with this cult and those who think they have any influence on GCC, just because of a historical association with GNU.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 10:37 PM > From: "David Brown" > To: "John Darrington" , "David Malcolm" > > Cc: g...@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > On 09/04/2021 08:37, John Darrington wrote: > > > > > Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed > > anyone as "mein Führer". I think he would be very much concerned if anyone > > tried to confer a cult hero status on him. > > > > Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to step > > down as leader of GNU. Rather than calling for his head on a block it > > would be more constructive to think to the future. Unfortunately to date, > > I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities necessary > > to take over the role. > > > > And I don't think people (at least, not many) are "calling for his > head". My thought is that he should be encouraged to step down from all > his positions within GNU, FSF, gcc, and any other projects he is > involved with. Retire now, while he can do so with dignity and without > harm to the free and open source software worlds. David, I oppose your thought that he should be made to step down from ALL his positions. That's the fundamental philosophy of China and Russia. > It is only if it is left too late that people will be /forced/ to call > for his head. You can be very sure that complaints about his behaviour > and attitudes will not diminish - they will grow, and the result will > not be good for RMS, GNU, gcc, users, developers, or anyone else except > the sellers of tabloid newspapers. I would rather see him leave quietly > now with respect, than be hounded out later and his statues pulled down > - along with the careers and reputations of many who work with him. (I > am not saying that such a destruction would be correct or appropriate - > I am saying it will happen in the end if the free software community is > not careful.) > (I agree that there are few, if any, people who had the qualities of RMS > to do the job he did. But IMHO that role is over - we don't need > someone to fill his shoes.) I do not see that a person with the qualities of RMS would ask permission for the job. I certainly don't! > David Brown >
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 11:48 PM > From: "Pankaj Jangid" > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > Gabriel Ravier via Gcc writes: > > > RMS is not indispensible because he does not contribute to GCC and > > doesn't bring much to it, and otherwise takes more away from it. If > > you were to remove all of Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan you would > > be removing ~13% of active contribution to GCC (counting in > > commits). If you also remove all the major contributors that are from > > corporations (counting a major contributor as someone with 10 or more > > commits), you're removing ~63% of active contribution. If you also > > remove the major organizations contributing to GCC, like Adacore and > > the GDC project, you're removing ~18% more of active contribution, > > meaning you're left with 19% of active contribution. While I do not > > doubt that all of the contributors that would remain are talented > > individuals, GCC would undoubtedly, in the best case, heavily suffer > > from the loss of 3 to 4 fifths of active contribution and become much > > less appealing as a compiler, and in the worst case simply die > > out. While each of the individuals forming any of those groups aren't > > indispensable, as a group, they certainly are indispensible to GCC > > unless you think GCC can really survive with 3/5 times less > > contributions to it. > > What is this man? Are you trying to compute the probability of survival > a project? You forgot to count me. I am one of the users of GCC. If > there are no users then the project is dead; however heavyweight the > maintainers are. > > And let me also tell you the truth. I have looked at the list of > maintainers and the steering committee for the first time, when this > thread was started. My reason for sticking to GCC is FSF and associated > cause. Not the above list of people. Those who are not connected with > the cause have already started migrating to the competing tools. RMS made the GNU System without the cohort of active contributions listed. This means that great things can be accomplished when people is focused on what they do. I am sure help will come from other sources if the tools are valuable enough.
GSoC 2021 Proposal for the Rust Frontend
I have sent my proposal to GSoC about improving the warnings of Rust-GCC Frontend and more specifically the warnings that are connected with immutable values . You can see my full proposal here : https://docs.google.com/document/d/146zKtk6rEbZV7c5Fomt8VomjG8AnzQ4aULHhnM8hh6M/edit?usp=sharing George Liakopoulos
Re: Copyright Assignment Form
Replied privately. On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 8:37 AM Ruihan Li via Gcc wrote: > > Hello, everyone. > > > > > I'd like to contribute to the gccrs project > (https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs) and they require contributions to have > copyright assignment in place. Could you please tell me what I should do and > send me the relevant forms? > > Thank you in advance. > > Ruihan Li
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On 4/9/21 1:48 PM, Pankaj Jangid wrote: Gabriel Ravier via Gcc writes: RMS is not indispensible because he does not contribute to GCC and doesn't bring much to it, and otherwise takes more away from it. If you were to remove all of Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan you would be removing ~13% of active contribution to GCC (counting in commits). If you also remove all the major contributors that are from corporations (counting a major contributor as someone with 10 or more commits), you're removing ~63% of active contribution. If you also remove the major organizations contributing to GCC, like Adacore and the GDC project, you're removing ~18% more of active contribution, meaning you're left with 19% of active contribution. While I do not doubt that all of the contributors that would remain are talented individuals, GCC would undoubtedly, in the best case, heavily suffer from the loss of 3 to 4 fifths of active contribution and become much less appealing as a compiler, and in the worst case simply die out. While each of the individuals forming any of those groups aren't indispensable, as a group, they certainly are indispensible to GCC unless you think GCC can really survive with 3/5 times less contributions to it. What is this man? Are you trying to compute the probability of survival a project? You forgot to count me. I am one of the users of GCC. If there are no users then the project is dead; however heavyweight the maintainers are. And let me also tell you the truth. I have looked at the list of maintainers and the steering committee for the first time, when this thread was started. My reason for sticking to GCC is FSF and associated cause. Not the above list of people. Those who are not connected with the cause have already started migrating to the competing tools. If you have an enormous exodus of maintainers that takes away 4 fifths of maintainers, then there is a very high probability that the project will simply die by essentially all measures except for such asinine ones as "there is still at least 1 user of it" (under which, say, Version 6 UNIX is not dead as there are still computers running it and people using it), as a GCC with much less people maintaining it would, over time, become very unattractive as a tool for actually making programs, as progress on developing it would become very slow. It would, for example, lose any C++ users that want to use anything beyond C++17 or the partial support for C++20 that GCC has right now. While I am not saying that the amount of maintainers is directly tied to the survival of a project, I would certainly say that a project with near to no maintainers without which it cannot compete with competing projects (for example, Clang) /will/ die off. The only ones that would remain would be those that would use GCC despite its enormous shortcomings for the single and only reason that it is licensed under the GPL, and those would be rather rare compared to the amount of people that use GCC right now. I am not saying that they are just a few dozen people or something like that, but GCC would become a shadow of its former self without any other support. I would say that under those circumstances GCC would become about as popular as Turbo C or other antiquated tools like it, and I would certainly hope one would consider Turbo C to be a dead compiler, despite the fact that it still has at least 1 active user. While I don't think this outcome is likely, it would become likely if every single corporation and organization involved in the development of GCC suddenly retracted support for it. Do you really think GCC could remain competitive compared to compilers like Clang or MSVC if development on it was 5 times as slow, and if distributions like Fedora and Ubuntu started to migrate to LLVM, or even maybe straight up removed GCC from their repositories ? PS: Of course, this is completely implausible, and it is almost certain that this will never happen, but you're implying that GCC can perfectly survive without any support from corporations: I am simply telling you what would happen if all those corporations actually stopped to support it
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On 09/04/2021 16:40, Christopher Dimech wrote: >> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 10:37 PM >> From: "David Brown" >> To: "John Darrington" , "David Malcolm" >> >> Cc: g...@gnu.org >> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF >> >> On 09/04/2021 08:37, John Darrington wrote: >> >>> >>> Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed >>> anyone as "mein Führer". I think he would be very much concerned if anyone >>> tried to confer a cult hero status on him. >>> >>> Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to step >>> down as leader of GNU. Rather than calling for his head on a block it >>> would be more constructive to think to the future. Unfortunately to date, >>> I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities necessary >>> to take over the role. >>> >> >> And I don't think people (at least, not many) are "calling for his >> head". My thought is that he should be encouraged to step down from all >> his positions within GNU, FSF, gcc, and any other projects he is >> involved with. Retire now, while he can do so with dignity and without >> harm to the free and open source software worlds. > > David, I oppose your thought that he should be made to step down from ALL > his positions. That's the fundamental philosophy of China and Russia. > Different opinions are fine. Bringing national or international politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is not fine. This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to make it one. >> It is only if it is left too late that people will be /forced/ to call >> for his head. You can be very sure that complaints about his behaviour >> and attitudes will not diminish - they will grow, and the result will >> not be good for RMS, GNU, gcc, users, developers, or anyone else except >> the sellers of tabloid newspapers. I would rather see him leave quietly >> now with respect, than be hounded out later and his statues pulled down >> - along with the careers and reputations of many who work with him. (I >> am not saying that such a destruction would be correct or appropriate - >> I am saying it will happen in the end if the free software community is >> not careful.) > >> (I agree that there are few, if any, people who had the qualities of RMS >> to do the job he did. But IMHO that role is over - we don't need >> someone to fill his shoes.) > > I do not see that a person with the qualities of RMS would ask permission for > the job. I certainly don't! > We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities of RMS any more - that is the point. There should not be such a position as "Chief GNUsance".
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:01 AM > From: "David Brown" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: "John Darrington" , "David Malcolm" > , g...@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > On 09/04/2021 16:40, Christopher Dimech wrote: > >> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 10:37 PM > >> From: "David Brown" > >> To: "John Darrington" , "David Malcolm" > >> > >> Cc: g...@gnu.org > >> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > >> > >> On 09/04/2021 08:37, John Darrington wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed > >>> anyone as "mein Führer". I think he would be very much concerned if > >>> anyone > >>> tried to confer a cult hero status on him. > >>> > >>> Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to > >>> step > >>> down as leader of GNU. Rather than calling for his head on a block it > >>> would be more constructive to think to the future. Unfortunately to date, > >>> I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities > >>> necessary > >>> to take over the role. > >>> > >> > >> And I don't think people (at least, not many) are "calling for his > >> head". My thought is that he should be encouraged to step down from all > >> his positions within GNU, FSF, gcc, and any other projects he is > >> involved with. Retire now, while he can do so with dignity and without > >> harm to the free and open source software worlds. > > > > David, I oppose your thought that he should be made to step down from ALL > > his positions. That's the fundamental philosophy of China and Russia. > > > > Different opinions are fine. Bringing national or international > politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is > not fine. This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to > make it one. It is an assessment of what you propose. The removal of people from all positions is a political statements. I have no problem with political discussions and certainly don't take instructions from you, to say the least! What you talk about is exactly what drives Chinese and Russian officials to suppress anybody who does not conform with their demands. The consequences will be the same should you and others get your way of doing things. > >> It is only if it is left too late that people will be /forced/ to call > >> for his head. You can be very sure that complaints about his behaviour > >> and attitudes will not diminish - they will grow, and the result will > >> not be good for RMS, GNU, gcc, users, developers, or anyone else except > >> the sellers of tabloid newspapers. I would rather see him leave quietly > >> now with respect, than be hounded out later and his statues pulled down > >> - along with the careers and reputations of many who work with him. (I > >> am not saying that such a destruction would be correct or appropriate - > >> I am saying it will happen in the end if the free software community is > >> not careful.) > > > >> (I agree that there are few, if any, people who had the qualities of RMS > >> to do the job he did. But IMHO that role is over - we don't need > >> someone to fill his shoes.) > > > > I do not see that a person with the qualities of RMS would ask permission > > for > > the job. I certainly don't! > > > > We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities > of RMS any more - that is the point. There should not be such a > position as "Chief GNUsance". Secondly, I cannot clearly see what status you have for making statements that imply a representation for the free software world!!!
Re: GCC association with the FSF
Things will still remain good for RMS by those willing to help him. I use free software every day and will be a long time before Richard exhausts his entitlement to help from me!!! > Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:01 AM > From: "David Brown" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: "John Darrington" , "David Malcolm" > , g...@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > On 09/04/2021 16:40, Christopher Dimech wrote: > >> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 10:37 PM > >> From: "David Brown" > >> To: "John Darrington" , "David Malcolm" > >> > >> Cc: g...@gnu.org > >> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > >> > >> On 09/04/2021 08:37, John Darrington wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed > >>> anyone as "mein Führer". I think he would be very much concerned if > >>> anyone > >>> tried to confer a cult hero status on him. > >>> > >>> Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to > >>> step > >>> down as leader of GNU. Rather than calling for his head on a block it > >>> would be more constructive to think to the future. Unfortunately to date, > >>> I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities > >>> necessary > >>> to take over the role. > >>> > >> > >> And I don't think people (at least, not many) are "calling for his > >> head". My thought is that he should be encouraged to step down from all > >> his positions within GNU, FSF, gcc, and any other projects he is > >> involved with. Retire now, while he can do so with dignity and without > >> harm to the free and open source software worlds. > > > > David, I oppose your thought that he should be made to step down from ALL > > his positions. That's the fundamental philosophy of China and Russia. > > > > Different opinions are fine. Bringing national or international > politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is > not fine. This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to > make it one. > > >> It is only if it is left too late that people will be /forced/ to call > >> for his head. You can be very sure that complaints about his behaviour > >> and attitudes will not diminish - they will grow, and the result will > >> not be good for RMS, GNU, gcc, users, developers, or anyone else except > >> the sellers of tabloid newspapers. I would rather see him leave quietly > >> now with respect, than be hounded out later and his statues pulled down > >> - along with the careers and reputations of many who work with him. (I > >> am not saying that such a destruction would be correct or appropriate - > >> I am saying it will happen in the end if the free software community is > >> not careful.) > > > >> (I agree that there are few, if any, people who had the qualities of RMS > >> to do the job he did. But IMHO that role is over - we don't need > >> someone to fill his shoes.) > > > > I do not see that a person with the qualities of RMS would ask permission > > for > > the job. I certainly don't! > > > > We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities > of RMS any more - that is the point. There should not be such a > position as "Chief GNUsance". > >
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote: Different opinions are fine. Bringing national or international politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is not fine. This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to make it one. For the record it was David who first brought up the political allegory so this comment should be directed in his direction. As for your second point, I find it disappointing but not suprising that you "presumed" this comment to be an insult. This is precisely the thing which has caused so much poisonous discourse in recent years. Some people take any opinion they disagree with and look for ways to interpret it as an insult. This gives them a lever to claim that anyone who holds that opinion is a chauvanist, a bigot or worse. This must stop.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On 2021-04-09 11:02, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote: [... snip ...] We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities of RMS any more - that is the point. There should not be such a position as "Chief GNUsance". Secondly, I cannot clearly see what status you have for making statements that imply a representation for the free software world!!! I know, right? He's not even got the cred conferred to a maintainer of an empty GNU project on Savannah.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
Hi John, On April 9, 2021 6:36:31 PM UTC, John Darrington wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote: > > Different opinions are fine. Bringing national or international > politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is > not fine. This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to > make it one. > > For the record it was David who first brought up the political I think David was talking about me: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235285.html It was not meant to insult anybody, I was just asking to fix a serious problem in GCC. Since it's clear that the Steering Committee doesn't want to address it, I'm moving on. GCC is clearly an US-only project. A US-corporate one. Totally SFW (in the US). This is not intended as an insult. It's just a fact. Giacomo
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 7:37 AM > From: "Thomas Rodgers" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: "David Brown" , g...@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > On 2021-04-09 11:02, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote: > > [... snip ...] > > >> We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities > >> of RMS any more - that is the point. There should not be such a > >> position as "Chief GNUsance". > > Secondly, I cannot clearly see what status you have for making > > statements > > that imply a representation for the free software world!!! > > I know, right? He's not even got the cred conferred to a maintainer of > an empty GNU project on Savannah. There is no law that says the highest grossing author on a subject knows the most about it, writes the best about it, or is even more than mediocre on the subject at hand. My mathematical work was entirely kept secret until I resigned my commission in 2014. Other forms of credibility exist. https://www.corrieredimalta.com/coronavirus/la-diffusione-del-covid-19-a-malta-evento-b/ But you seem too ignorant to introspect the likelihood that I could in effect have many valuable things to say. Christopher
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On 2021-04-09 14:02, Christopher Dimech wrote: But you seem too ignorant to introspect the likelihood that I could in effect have many valuable things to say. On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your missives on this topic, hoping for exactly that very thing to occur.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 9:17 AM > From: "Thomas Rodgers" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: "David Brown" , g...@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > On 2021-04-09 14:02, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > > But you seem too ignorant to introspect the likelihood that I could in > > effect have > > many valuable things to say. > > On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your missives on > this topic, hoping for exactly that very > thing to occur. I do not see how you and your friends at redhat could really get any value from it, because being a seeker of truth means refusing to make assumptions about things that you do not know. The moment you assume that you know because of what you believe, your intelligence will sleep. It is my wish and my blessing that every human being has their intelligence awake. Good Night Christopher
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 1:04 PM Giacomo Tesio wrote: > Hi John, > > On April 9, 2021 6:36:31 PM UTC, John Darrington < > j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote: > > > > Different opinions are fine. Bringing national or international > > politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is > > not fine. This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to > > make it one. > > > > For the record it was David who first brought up the political > > I think David was talking about me: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235285.html > > It was not meant to insult anybody, I was just asking to fix a serious > problem in GCC. > > Since it's clear that the Steering Committee doesn't want to address it, > I'm moving on. > > > GCC is clearly an US-only project. > A US-corporate one. Totally SFW (in the US). > > This is not intended as an insult. > It's just a fact. > Just for the record, for other readers, this is not even remotely true. Ian
Re: GCC association with the FSF
Just for the record, I was not talking about developers but about the leadership of the project, Ian. 8 out of 13 members of the Steering Committee are from US-corporations. This is a fact. Just like the weird relations some of these companies have had with US Government: https://www.virtualthreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/nsa-google-cloud-exploitation.jpg The implications are left as an exercise for the readers. ;-) Giacomo On April 9, 2021 9:40:33 PM UTC, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 1:04 PM Giacomo Tesio wrote: > > > Hi John, > > > > On April 9, 2021 6:36:31 PM UTC, John Darrington < > > j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote: > > > > > > Different opinions are fine. Bringing national or > international > > > politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an > insult) is > > > not fine. This is not a political discussion - please stop > trying to > > > make it one. > > > > > > For the record it was David who first brought up the political > > > > I think David was talking about me: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235285.html > > > > It was not meant to insult anybody, I was just asking to fix a > serious > > problem in GCC. > > > > Since it's clear that the Steering Committee doesn't want to address > it, > > I'm moving on. > > > > > > GCC is clearly an US-only project. > > A US-corporate one. Totally SFW (in the US). > > > > This is not intended as an insult. > > It's just a fact. > > > > Just for the record, for other readers, this is not even remotely > true. > > Ian
gcc-9-20210409 is now available
Snapshot gcc-9-20210409 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20210409/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 9 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch releases/gcc-9 revision 9aeab5815df1ec52b1048a157ef243a4c45234b7 You'll find: gcc-9-20210409.tar.xzComplete GCC SHA256=e96116f4b95c462f55299989984c087245040c0437a11f837e632ef6fa8263db SHA1=ada6282f4c123cc3e0d57cfa6676f6196f1a3cd3 Diffs from 9-20210402 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-9 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: GCC association with the FSF
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021, 23:22 Giacomo Tesio, wrote: > Just for the record, I was not talking about developers but about the > leadership of the project, Ian. > > 8 out of 13 members of the Steering Committee are from US-corporations. > > This is a fact. > > > Just like the weird relations some of these companies have had with US > Government: > > https://www.virtualthreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/nsa-google-cloud-exploitation.jpg > > The implications are left as an exercise for the readers. ;-) > You are clueless about what the SC actually does, or the control they have over GCC. You said you would move on, please do so.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 10:12 AM > From: "Giacomo Tesio" > To: "Ian Lance Taylor" > Cc: "GCC Development" , g...@gnu.org, "David Brown" > > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > Just for the record, I was not talking about developers but about the > leadership of the project, Ian. > > 8 out of 13 members of the Steering Committee are from US-corporations. > > This is a fact. Many in tech have worked at some point in their lives with large corporations. This is not wrong it itself because most knowledge is concentrated in highly industrialized countries. I owe much of my technological experience during my days working with british, dutch and french intelligence. It is also well known that governments employ about 10% of the best mathematicians. Furthermore I cannot see how you can feel secure if the people involved work from Non-Us Corporations. There are many countries that are even worse than the US. > Just like the weird relations some of these companies have had with US > Government: > https://www.virtualthreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/nsa-google-cloud-exploitation.jpg > > The implications are left as an exercise for the readers. ;-) > > > Giacomo > > On April 9, 2021 9:40:33 PM UTC, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 1:04 PM Giacomo Tesio wrote: > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > On April 9, 2021 6:36:31 PM UTC, John Darrington < > > > j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > Different opinions are fine. Bringing national or > > international > > > > politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an > > insult) is > > > > not fine. This is not a political discussion - please stop > > trying to > > > > make it one. > > > > > > > > For the record it was David who first brought up the political > > > > > > I think David was talking about me: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235285.html > > > > > > It was not meant to insult anybody, I was just asking to fix a > > serious > > > problem in GCC. > > > > > > Since it's clear that the Steering Committee doesn't want to address > > it, > > > I'm moving on. > > > > > > > > > GCC is clearly an US-only project. > > > A US-corporate one. Totally SFW (in the US). > > > > > > This is not intended as an insult. > > > It's just a fact. > > > > > > > Just for the record, for other readers, this is not even remotely > > true. > > > > Ian >
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Just for the record, I was not talking about developers but about > the leadership of the project, Ian. > > 8 out of 13 members of the Steering Committee are from US-corporations. I don't think I'd consider the Steering Committee "the leadership of the project". In what sense do they "lead" the project? To me, when you talk about "leading" a software project, you're talking about deciding what work gets done and when and by whom it gets done. The SC has *absolutely zero* influence on any of those things. All the "maintainers" they appoint (which is already indirect) do is approve changes, not make the changes or decide what changes to make. And their approval is supposed to be on technical or style grounds. The people who make the "leadership" decisions (what to work on and when) are the companies that employ the *developers*, not the SC or the companies the employ the members of the SC.
Re: Copyright Assignment Form
在 2021/4/9 下午11:06, David Edelsohn via Gcc 写道: Replied privately. Excuse me, but why this has to be done privately? I generally expect there to be such a form that people may download, fill and submit without public acknowledgements. Please forgive me if I am being too curious. -- Best regards, Liu Hao OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 2:53 PM > From: "Liu Hao" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: g...@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > 在 2021/4/10 上午2:02, Christopher Dimech via Gcc 写道: > > > > It is an assessment of what you propose. The removal of people from all > > positions is a political statements. I have no problem with political > > discussions and certainly don't take instructions from you, to say the > > least! What you talk about is exactly what drives Chinese and Russian > > officials to suppress anybody who does not conform with their demands. > > The consequences will be the same should you and others get your way > > of doing things. > > > > Then what's your point? The suppression of somebody is bad? Then what are you > attempting to defend? > The freedom of software, or of discrimination, of insulting, of harassment? > No, that is not what I > would do or expect, and not what you western people would either. Yes, the suppression of a person like Stallman from everything is bad. I defend the freedom of thought. > Chairman Mao actually said that 'women prop up half of the sky', which had a > great influence on the > Chinese society and has almost eradicated sexism. It's something I can hardly > understand why you > (singular) still have a very vicious opinion on that. The suppression of a mass murderer by execution, imprisonment or forced famine is good. As is good the suppression of the Communist Party of China, for trying to dominate the people of Hong Kong, Nepal, and Taiwan. As well as for lying about coronavirus infection rates amongst people in China. > [I am not meant to participate in the discussion about the history and future > of GCC.] > > > > -- > Best regards, > Liu Hao > >
Re: GCC association with the FSF
在 2021/4/10 上午2:02, Christopher Dimech via Gcc 写道: It is an assessment of what you propose. The removal of people from all positions is a political statements. I have no problem with political discussions and certainly don't take instructions from you, to say the least! What you talk about is exactly what drives Chinese and Russian officials to suppress anybody who does not conform with their demands. The consequences will be the same should you and others get your way of doing things. Then what's your point? The suppression of somebody is bad? Then what are you attempting to defend? The freedom of software, or of discrimination, of insulting, of harassment? No, that is not what I would do or expect, and not what you western people would either. Chairman Mao actually said that 'women prop up half of the sky', which had a great influence on the Chinese society and has almost eradicated sexism. It's something I can hardly understand why you (singular) still have a very vicious opinion on that. [I am not meant to participate in the discussion about the history and future of GCC.] -- Best regards, Liu Hao OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
GSoC proposal - LTO incremental linking optimization
Hi! My name is Carlos Barbosa, and I would like to participate in this year's GSoC with GCC. I'm a brazilian undergraduate student and I've been passionate about free software ever since I first heard of it. I'm most interested in OS level programming, language development, optimization and, of course, compiler development. I'm actually only starting to contribute to free software code now, but I have been active in other ways at local FOSS communities for a couple of years now. About the GSoC proposal, the LTO now re-processes everything from scratch, for any changes in the code, no matter how small. So, the project idea is to make it work incrementally, avoiding unnecessary re-processing. In order to do so, I thought about focusing the most at WPA, first verifying and mapping still valid parts of the old ELF code, then building the new optimization_summary with them and with new code. Then, if LTRANS can't determine which files have been modified, this "diff" might be passed in the IPA to it, so only the modified files get re-optimized. During LTRANS, would using an analogous approach, trying to make local optimizations incremental too, be interesting? Do you have any suggestions about how to improve this approach idea? I apologize already if I misunderstood something in the docs and/or didn't make sense at some point. Regards, Carlos Barbosa
GSoC proposal - LTO incremental linking
Hi! My name is Carlos Barbosa, and I would like to participate in this year's GSoC with GCC. I'm a brazilian undergraduate student and I've been passionate about free software ever since I first heard of it. I'm most interested in OS level programming, language development, optimization and, of course, compiler development. I'm actually only starting to contribute to free software code now, but I have been active in other ways at local FOSS communities for a couple of years now. About the GSoC proposal, the LTO now re-processes everything from scratch, for any changes in the code, no matter how small. So, the project idea is to make it work incrementally, avoiding unnecessary re-processing. In order to do so, I thought about focusing the most at WPA, first verifying and mapping still valid parts of the old ELF code, then building the new optimization_summary with them and with new code. Then, if LTRANS can't determine which files have been modified, this "diff" might be passed in the IPA to it, so only the modified files get re-optimized. During LTRANS, would using an analogous approach, trying to make local optimizations incremental too, be interesting? Do you have any suggestions about how to improve this approach idea? I apologize already if I misunderstood something in the docs and/or didn't make sense at some point. Regards, Carlos Barbosa
