Sent from my iPhone
here your name might be associated with the company, then your
> employer may demand that you cease publicly working on Free Software.
Not necessarily.
I'll offer you my own example. I'm the target maintainer for pdp11. It should
be obvious that I'm doing this as an "independen
e company, then your
employer may demand that you cease publicly working on Free Software.
I find it a bit hypocritical; there's no objection to the fact that
GCC was developed using stuff bought with funds donated by these
companies, their creators and their employees, to MIT, including
peo
On 4/20/21 7:42 AM, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
Troubling indeed, but this might just be an overzealous manager.
IBM, like other corporations, has made significant technical
contributions to GCC over the years, for example the scheduler and
the vectorizer, and thus has assigned the copyright of
Hi David,
I'm amused to see how far you can go to rationalize such a clear statement:
"You are an IBM employee 100% of the time."
This is the kind of control these companies think they deserve over their
employees.
And when they refuse to obey, they are fired, like Timnit Gebru.
To me, the
> Troubling indeed, but this might just be an overzealous manager.
> IBM, like other corporations, has made significant technical
> contributions to GCC over the years, for example the scheduler and
> the vectorizer, and thus has assigned the copyright of these
> contributions to the FSF.
Yes, as
> You are an IBM employee 100% of the time.
For those who aren't aware of it, this has been IBM's position for
many decades. It's not a new position. But they are unique in the
extremeness of their position on this, so generalizing this would be a
mistake.
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 11:21, David Brown wrote:
> On 20/04/2021 08:54, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > Hi GCC developers,
> >
> > just to further clarify why I think the current Steering Committee is
> highly problematic,
> > I'd like you to give a look at this commit
> > message over Linux MAINTAINERS
You got to understand what an employee 100% of the time means.
It means to be 100% Employer-Owned - It is the Culture of Ownership.
But the tyrannical double standard do-gooders and the continued pretense
that they're trying to help people in this society (e.g. women,
minorities, free sof
On 20/04/2021 08:54, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Hi GCC developers,
>
> just to further clarify why I think the current Steering Committee is highly
> problematic,
> I'd like you to give a look at this commit
> message over Linux MAINTAINERS
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/
obey."
"When I hear the voice say,
'Now, listen to me, ' I will obey."
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 7:37 PM
> From: "Eric Botcazou"
> To: "Giacomo Tesio"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: On US corporate influence over Free Soft
> Here the relevant excerpt (but please go chech the quotation):
>
> "As an IBM employee, you are not allowed to use your gmail account to work
> in any way on VNIC. You are not allowed to use your personal email account
> as a "hobby". You are an IBM employee 100% of the time.
> Please remove you
Hi GCC developers,
just to further clarify why I think the current Steering Committee is highly
problematic,
I'd like you to give a look at this commit
message over Linux MAINTAINERS
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git/commit/?id=4acd47644ef1e1c8f8f5bc40b7cf1c5b9bcbbc4
esday, October 29, 2019 6:36 PM
To: Kumar, Dhanalakshmi
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; DL-INTVULMGMT ;
B&FApps_VulnerabilityManagement
Subject: Re: COTS:[urgent]: [External]:Information required on security-related
patches under Free Software Foundation
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 13:02, Jonathan Wakely wrot
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 13:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 12:15, Kumar, Dhanalakshmi
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Team,
> >
> >
> >
> > Could you please provide the latest market version for the Application (as
> > mentioned in the below table)
> >
> >
> >
> > Business Application N
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 12:15, Kumar, Dhanalakshmi
wrote:
>
> Hi Team,
>
>
>
> Could you please provide the latest market version for the Application (as
> mentioned in the below table)
>
>
>
> Business Application Name
>
> Honeywell Version Installed
> GNU COMPILER COLLECTION
> gcc-8 (SUSE Linux)
Hi Team,
Could you please provide the latest market version for the Application (as
mentioned in the below table)
Business Application Name
Honeywell Version Installed
GNU COMPILER COLLECTION
gcc-8 (SUSE Linux) 8.2.1 20180831 [gcc-8-branch revision 264010]
Is there any security fixes ava
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org
Pook
On 03/10/2017 03:08 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:49 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
As discussed at the last Cauldron, the first interest of the community
seems to be the shared infrastructure of Sourceware: hosting, sys
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:49 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> A fund to benefit the components of the GNU Toolchain (GCC, GDB,
>> GLIBC, Binutils, Sourceware) has been established at the Free Software
>> Foundatio
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:49 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> A fund to benefit the components of the GNU Toolchain (GCC, GDB,
> GLIBC, Binutils, Sourceware) has been established at the Free Software
> Foundation.
>
> Personal and corporate donations are welcome!
>
> http:/
A fund to benefit the components of the GNU Toolchain (GCC, GDB,
GLIBC, Binutils, Sourceware) has been established at the Free Software
Foundation.
Personal and corporate donations are welcome!
http://www.fsf.org/news/gnu-toolchain-now-accepting-donations-with-the-support-of-the-free-software
a to exclude political and social ramifications
from the software design and use decisions...
It so happens that over the long hall, the free software ends up being
technologically superiormost often. But this is besides the point.
<>
Clearly this is a complete break off now of the BSD community
Chris Lattner skribis:
> On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> (Hint: read http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/ as an example of a
>> better-supported point of view.)
>
> Unrelated to this thread, it would be great for this web page to get updated.
> You may find it to be "
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
In the free software movement, we campaign for the freedom of the
users of comp
Hi Vladimir,
o Comparing LLVM and GCC on Fortran benchmarks. LLVM has no fortran FE and just
quietly call system GCC. So comparison of LLVM and GCC on Fortran benchmarks
means comparison of system GCC and a given GCC.
a few people are working on LLVM based Fortran compilers. I'm not sure how
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:52:00PM -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> o IMHO, the data in articles lack credability may be because a wrong
> setup (by me or by phoronix). E.g. I tried to reproduce Scimark
> results for GCC4.8 and LLVM3.3 from his article "LLVM Clang 3.4
> Already Has Some Performanc
Sorry, I forgot that pdf file is not permitted. Therefore I am
resending my email without it.
On 1/23/2014, 5:56 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
(Hint: read http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/ as an example of a
better-supported point of view.
On 01/24/2014 12:12 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23 January 2014 22:56, Chris Lattner wrote:
Unrelated to this thread, it would be great for this web page to get updated. You may
find it to be "a better-supported point of view", but it is also comparing
against clang 3.2, which is from the
On 23 January 2014 22:56, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> Unrelated to this thread, it would be great for this web page to get updated.
> You may find it to be "a better-supported point of view", but it is also
> comparing against clang 3.2, which is from the end of 2012, and a lot has
> changed since
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> (Hint: read http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/ as an example of a
>> better-supported point of view.)
>
> Unrelated to this thread, it would be great for this web page to get update
On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> (Hint: read http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/ as an example of a
> better-supported point of view.)
Unrelated to this thread, it would be great for this web page to get updated.
You may find it to be "a better-supported point of view",
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> (Redirected to the proper lists, excluding emacs-devel.)
This is not the proper list. "gcc@ is a ... list for general
development discussions about GCC." (xf
http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html). Most of this pointless discussion has
nothing to d
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>> Maybe nobody bothers because using clang is easier than to fight with
>> FSF policies.
>
> Which is pretty close if not identical to my original point.
Your original point came across as a complaint that GCC does not
support plugins bec
On 23 January 2014 17:49, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> (Redirected to the proper lists, excluding emacs-devel.)
Why do you think the gcc list is the proper place?
> The clang people aren't just a technical challenge to GCC, they're a
> philosophical/political one to the FSF as well. They are explic
o the gcc list: "is
there are reason for not making the [GCC] front ends dynamic
libraries which could be linked by any program that wants to parse
source code?"
Carruth then quotes RMS: "One of our main goals for GCC is to prevent
any parts of it from being used together with non-free
ers to maintain script
machinery to help with GCC development on nine bi pentium 3 machines as
well as GCC developers that are lacking x86 machine access.
How to Get Involved ?
If you are a GCC developer and want access to the compileFarm for GCC
development and testing, or if you are a free so
ers to maintain script
machinery to help with GCC development on nine bi pentium 3 machines as
well as GCC developers that are lacking x86 machine access.
How to Get Involved ?
If you are a GCC developer and want access to the compileFarm for GCC
development and testing, or if you are a free so
38 matches
Mail list logo
