Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The SC discussed it with Richard Stallman, and he agrees that it is not
"dangerous" (the FSF had raised objections to byte-code systems in the
past, so many of us assumed there would be a problem). So there is no
political/legal objection to including a CIL bac
Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 09:06:28PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> As Joe Buck, a Steering Committee member said, you need to talk to RMS
>> directly and get him to accept the idea, before we can do anything about it.
>
> I already asked RMS directly, and he has approved. Again,
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 11:49:45AM +0200, Roberto COSTA wrote:
> > By the way, is there any news about the status of the CIL issue?
> > I'm sorry to bother the list readers about this, but whom could I
> > directly ask?
I wrote:
> Sorry for the delay in answering, Robert. I was out of town, and
The SC discussed it with Richard Stallman, and he agrees that it is not
"dangerous" (the FSF had raised objections to byte-code systems in the
past, so many of us assumed there would be a problem). So there is no
political/legal objection to including a CIL back end. If it passes
med there would be a problem). So there is no
political/legal objection to including a CIL back end. If it passes
technical review, it can be included.
Hello,
Thanks for the answer, this is great news!
We have to start working on the paperwork. Could anybody point us at the
relevant forms for the
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 09:06:28PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> As Joe Buck, a Steering Committee member said, you need to talk to RMS
> directly and get him to accept the idea, before we can do anything about it.
I already asked RMS directly, and he has approved. Again, sorry for
the delay on g
ould be a problem). So there is no
political/legal objection to including a CIL back end. If it passes
technical review, it can be included.
Roberto COSTA wrote:
> Hello,
> last week I announced that, within the R&D division of
> STMicroelectronics I belong to, my team decided to work about a CIL
> back-end for gcc (see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-06/msg00420.html).
> After receiving positive feedback and in
Hello,
last week I announced that, within the R&D division of
STMicroelectronics I belong to, my team decided to work about a CIL
back-end for gcc (see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-06/msg00420.html).
After receiving positive feedback and interest about such a back-end, I
thought it'
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:39:25AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2006, at 2:02 AM, Roberto COSTA wrote:
> >In the meantime, I hope this doesn't prevent requesting a
> >development branch.
>
> I too think the SC should decide this issue. They are there for
> guidance, and on this issue
On Jun 13, 2006, at 2:02 AM, Roberto COSTA wrote:
In the meantime, I hope this doesn't prevent requesting a
development branch.
I too think the SC should decide this issue. They are there for
guidance, and on this issue, I think that is what we need.
I don't think this prevents anyone fro
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Roberto COSTA writes:
> >
> > By the way, from the previous messages, I understand that the
> > inclusion of a CIL back-end into gcc cannot be taken as granted
> > until the issue is discussed and an approval is obtained.
>
> Righ
pers/Singer.pdf
so I think that an RTL CIL generator is really not a good idea.
> I think in my team we're at a more advanced stage, since we have ideas
> about how to do things and we start having some prototype code.
> I hope a collaboration is possible; I will certainly contact him and th
Roberto COSTA writes:
>
> By the way, from the previous messages, I understand that the
> inclusion of a CIL back-end into gcc cannot be taken as granted
> until the issue is discussed and an approval is obtained.
Right. And I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.
> In
the previous messages, I understand that the inclusion
of a CIL back-end into gcc cannot be taken as granted until the issue is
discussed and an approval is obtained.
In the meantime, I hope this doesn't prevent requesting a development
branch. Without that, it would be much more difficult t
Ori Bernstein wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:36:49 -0700, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Free software is all about collaboration with third parties, as I'm
>> sure that the SoC people are well aware.
>
> True. I'd still suggest asking and making sure, since I know for a fact that
> stu
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:36:49 -0700, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Free software is all about collaboration with third parties, as I'm
> sure that the SoC people are well aware.
True. I'd still suggest asking and making sure, since I know for a fact that
students aren't allowed to work toge
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 01:36:35PM -0500, Ori Bernstein wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:26:41 -0400, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > How could SoC rules in any way restrict what third
> > parties can do?
>
> It would restrict whether he could collaborate with a 3rd party.
Free soft
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:26:41 -0400, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> How could SoC rules in any way restrict what third
> parties can do?
It would restrict whether he could collaborate with a 3rd party.
--
When does summertime come to Minnesota, you ask? Well, last year, I
think it wa
Ori Bernstein wrote:
Perhaps you could collaborate with him, or (as I believe the Summer of Code
rules might require) build off his work after it gets submitted. I'd suggest
you contact the Mono project about it.
How could SoC rules in any way restrict what third
parties can do?
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:50:13 +0200, Roberto COSTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello,
>
> I'm working for an R&D organization of STMicroelectronics. Within our
> team we have decided to write a gcc back-end that produces CIL binaries
> (compliant with ECMA specification, see
> http://www.ecma-
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:50:13 +0200, Roberto COSTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello,
>
> I'm working for an R&D organization of STMicroelectronics. Within our
> team we have decided to write a gcc back-end that produces CIL binaries
> (compliant with ECMA specification, see
> http://www.ecma-
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 12:00:36PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Roberto COSTA wrote:
> > It looks like you don't assume such an approval as granted... may I ask
> > you why?
>
> Because they have a history of not granting such things, believing that
> it serves to hinder, not further, the goal o
Roberto COSTA wrote:
> Diego Novillo wrote:
>> Sebastian Pop wrote on 06/12/06 12:40:
>>
>>
>>> This page has no discussion about a CIL backend.
>>>
>> Note that I never said 'CIL'. I specifically said 'bytecode
>> representation'. The work being done for LTO will have some points in
>> common wi
ent of my
post is to propose a CIL back-end, not to suggest CIL as a bytecode
internal representation for link-time optimizations, nor to use CIL to
bump GCC internal representation and to circumvent GPL restrictions.
(Of course, if there are points in common between a CIL back-end and
efforts
On Jun 12, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
Could one of the SC people bring this question one level up?
I don't know if this is relevant at this point but GCC did have
at one point did have a Java byte code outputter but it was
removed on the request of RMS.
-- Pinski
Diego Novillo wrote:
> > The document in which Mark has announced the LTO briefly mentions
> > that CIL was not retained for dumping the IR, without giving an
> > explicit reason, so I think that we need a clear position from the
> > FSF whether such a backend is accepted to be part of GCC.
> >
Sebastian Pop wrote on 06/12/06 12:40:
> This page has no discussion about a CIL backend.
>
Note that I never said 'CIL'. I specifically said 'bytecode
representation'. The work being done for LTO will have some points in
common with an effort to build a CIL backend.
> The document in which Ma
Diego Novillo wrote:
> Roberto COSTA wrote on 06/12/06 03:50:
>
> > Every so often CIL looks to poke in the works of the mailing list, but I
> > haven't been able to track the current status of the discussion on the
> > topic.
> >
> We have started work on a bytecode representation that will initi
Roberto COSTA wrote on 06/12/06 03:50:
> Every so often CIL looks to poke in the works of the mailing list, but I
> haven't been able to track the current status of the discussion on the
> topic.
>
We have started work on a bytecode representation that will initially be
used for link-time optimiza
Hello,
I'm working for an R&D organization of STMicroelectronics. Within our
team we have decided to write a gcc back-end that produces CIL binaries
(compliant with ECMA specification, see
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm).
Our main motivation is the abili
31 matches
Mail list logo
