Intermediate representations used by GCC for C and C++ programs.

[Vishnu Reddy via Gcc]

Hello,

This is Vishnu. I'm a computer science student studying in India. We are
trying to build a compiler that uses machine learning to automatically
segregate code for the respective architecture i.e. CPU and the GPU.

We were looking up about all the stages of the intermediate representations
used by GCC so that we could perform feature extraction and then use it to
train the model. There was not enough information about all the IR stages
of GCC available online.

Could you please guide us to it if it is already present i.e we need some
documentation about the different stages of IR that GCC is using?

If you need any more information kindly reply to this email and I will get
back to you very soon.

Regards,
Vishnu S Reddy.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Kenner via Gcc]

>  Having one guy at the top from whom all power flows.
> 
> Power does not "flow" from RMS.  Since you have used a political analogy:
> I think it is more akin to a constitutional monarchy.

I think it's like the Queen of England.  As a British person I used to
know said: "The Queen of England has the power to veto anything passed by
the Parliament in any Commonwealth country until she actually does it; at
that point she'll lose that power".

I see it as the same here: if RMS tried to exert an inappropriate
level of control over some GNU project, it would soon be made clear that
that something he can't do.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[John Darrington]

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 07:56:14AM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
 >  Having one guy at the top from whom all power flows.
 > 
 > Power does not "flow" from RMS.  Since you have used a political analogy:
 > I think it is more akin to a constitutional monarchy.
 
 I think it's like the Queen of England.  As a British person I used to
 know said: "The Queen of England has the power to veto anything passed by
 the Parliament in any Commonwealth country until she actually does it; at
 that point she'll lose that power".

In 1975 she dismissed the prime minister of Australia, yet nearly 50 years
later she is still the head of state.
 
 I see it as the same here: if RMS tried to exert an inappropriate
 level of control over some GNU project, it would soon be made clear that
 that something he can't do.

Generally I agree.  Such draconian measures like dismissal of people has to
be done tactfully, only occasionally and only when there is very good cause.
So far as I'm aware, her majesty has done it only once; rms has done it only
twice.

J'

GCC 10.3.1 Status Report (2021-04-08)

[Richard Biener]

Status
==

GCC 10.3.0 tarballs have been generated and uploaded and the
GCC 10 branch is again open for regression and documentation fixes.


Quality Data


Priority  #   Change from last report
---   ---
P1
P2  326
P3   31   +   6
P4  178   -   1
P5   23
---   ---
Total P1-P3 356   +   6
Total   557   +   5


Previous Report
===

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235256.html

GCC 10.3 Released

[Richard Biener]

The GNU Compiler Collection version 10.3 has been released.

GCC 10.3 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 10 branch
containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in
GCC 10.2 with more than 178 bugs fixed since the previous release.

This release is available from the FTP servers listed at:

  http://www.gnu.org/order/ftp.html

Please do not contact me directly regarding questions or comments
about this release.  Instead, use the resources available from
http://gcc.gnu.org.

As always, a vast number of people contributed to this GCC release
-- far too many to thank them individually!

Re: Default debug format for AVR

[David Edelsohn via Gcc]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:03 AM Richard Biener
 wrote:
>
> On April 8, 2021 1:17:53 AM GMT+02:00, David Edelsohn  
> wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 6:34 AM Richard Biener via Gcc 
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 10:56 PM Simon Marchi via Gcc
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 2021-04-05 3:36 p.m., Jim Wilson wrote:> On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at
> >6:24 PM Simon Marchi via Gcc mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>>
> >wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > The default debug format (when using only -g) for the AVR
> >target is
> >> > > stabs.  Is there a reason for it not being DWARF, and would
> >it be
> >> > > possible to maybe consider possibly thinking about making it
> >default to
> >> > > DWARF?  I am asking because the support for stabs in GDB is
> >pretty much
> >> > > untested and bit-rotting, so I think it would be more useful
> >for
> >> > > everyone to use DWARF.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I tried to deprecate the stabs support a little over 4 years ago.
> >> > >
> >https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2017-December/489296.html
> >
> >> > > There was a suggestion to change the error to a warning, but my
> >startup company job kept me so busy I never had a chance to follow up
> >on this.
> >> > >
> >> > > I would like to see the stabs support deprecated and the later
> >removed from gcc.  No new features have been added in a long time, and
> >it is only being maintained in the sense that when it fails it is fixed
> >to ignore source code constructs that it doesn't support.  The longer
> >it survives in this state, the less useful it becomes.
> >> > >
> >> > > Jim
> >> >
> >> > You have 100% my suppose on this.  The longer stabs survives
> >(especially
> >> > as the default for an arch), the longer some people who don't know
> >the
> >> > intricacies of debug formats could use it without knowing, and that
> >> > does them a disservice.
> >>
> >> Patches to kill STABS (and related/derived formats) are pre-approved
> >for stage1.
> >
> >AIX continues to use and support STABS, although it is transitioning
> >to DWARF.  If this is intended as a general statement about removal of
> >STABS support in GCC,
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> Richard.

Richard,

It is inappropriate to unilaterally make this decision without
discussion with all affected ports and maintainers, without warning,
and without deprecation.  I request that you rescind this decision.

It is somewhat ironic to act as a dictator when we are having a
discussion about dictatorial behavior in GCC leadership.

Thanks, David

Re: Default debug format for AVR

[Richard Biener via Gcc]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 8:03 AM Richard Biener
 wrote:
>
> On April 8, 2021 1:17:53 AM GMT+02:00, David Edelsohn  
> wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 6:34 AM Richard Biener via Gcc 
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 10:56 PM Simon Marchi via Gcc
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 2021-04-05 3:36 p.m., Jim Wilson wrote:> On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at
> >6:24 PM Simon Marchi via Gcc mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>>
> >wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > The default debug format (when using only -g) for the AVR
> >target is
> >> > > stabs.  Is there a reason for it not being DWARF, and would
> >it be
> >> > > possible to maybe consider possibly thinking about making it
> >default to
> >> > > DWARF?  I am asking because the support for stabs in GDB is
> >pretty much
> >> > > untested and bit-rotting, so I think it would be more useful
> >for
> >> > > everyone to use DWARF.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I tried to deprecate the stabs support a little over 4 years ago.
> >> > >
> >https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2017-December/489296.html
> >
> >> > > There was a suggestion to change the error to a warning, but my
> >startup company job kept me so busy I never had a chance to follow up
> >on this.
> >> > >
> >> > > I would like to see the stabs support deprecated and the later
> >removed from gcc.  No new features have been added in a long time, and
> >it is only being maintained in the sense that when it fails it is fixed
> >to ignore source code constructs that it doesn't support.  The longer
> >it survives in this state, the less useful it becomes.
> >> > >
> >> > > Jim
> >> >
> >> > You have 100% my suppose on this.  The longer stabs survives
> >(especially
> >> > as the default for an arch), the longer some people who don't know
> >the
> >> > intricacies of debug formats could use it without knowing, and that
> >> > does them a disservice.
> >>
> >> Patches to kill STABS (and related/derived formats) are pre-approved
> >for stage1.
> >
> >AIX continues to use and support STABS, although it is transitioning
> >to DWARF.  If this is intended as a general statement about removal of
> >STABS support in GCC,
>
> Yes, it is.

To clarify any such patches of course have to keep existing ports
working with at least one supported debug info format.  But I think
it's time to default to DWARF for ports that have the choice and in
turn disable the possibility to enable STABS on them (maybe with
a deprecation warning for one major release).

That includes keeping AIX working (there's AIX machines on
the compile-farm that can be used for testing).

That includes disabling / diagnosting deprecated -gstabs on
*-linux targets and switching AVR to dwarf [only] as was the
original request.

Richard.

Re: Default debug format for AVR

[Simon Marchi via Gcc]

On 2021-04-08 9:11 a.m., David Edelsohn wrote:
>>> AIX continues to use and support STABS, although it is transitioning
>>> to DWARF.  If this is intended as a general statement about removal of
>>> STABS support in GCC,
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>> Richard.
> 
> Richard,
> 
> It is inappropriate to unilaterally make this decision without
> discussion with all affected ports and maintainers, without warning,
> and without deprecation.  I request that you rescind this decision.
> 
> It is somewhat ironic to act as a dictator when we are having a
> discussion about dictatorial behavior in GCC leadership.

I don't really want to start such a debate about GCC politics.  If stabs
is not ready to be deleted, that's fine.  But it would be good to go
through all targets for which it is the default (like avr), and see if
they are ready to be switched to DWARF.  That's a baby step towards
eventually deleting it.

Simon

Re: Default debug format for AVR

[Jeff Law via Gcc]

On 4/8/2021 8:06 AM, Simon Marchi via Gcc wrote:

On 2021-04-08 9:11 a.m., David Edelsohn wrote:

AIX continues to use and support STABS, although it is transitioning
to DWARF.  If this is intended as a general statement about removal of
STABS support in GCC,

Yes, it is.

Richard.

Richard,

It is inappropriate to unilaterally make this decision without
discussion with all affected ports and maintainers, without warning,
and without deprecation.  I request that you rescind this decision.

It is somewhat ironic to act as a dictator when we are having a
discussion about dictatorial behavior in GCC leadership.

I don't really want to start such a debate about GCC politics.  If stabs
is not ready to be deleted, that's fine.  But it would be good to go
through all targets for which it is the default (like avr), and see if
they are ready to be switched to DWARF.  That's a baby step towards
eventually deleting it.


Agreed.  I'd bet AIX is the outlier here and that most, if not all, 
other ports that may currently be stabs-by-default can switch to 
dwarf-by-default with no significant fallout.  So we fix everything we 
can while we wait for AIX to move forward.



jeff

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Malcolm via Gcc]

On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 08:45 +0200, John Darrington wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 06:34:12PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>  >  
>  >  What you're describing sounds like a dictatorship to me.
>  > 
>  >  I cannot see how you reach that conclusion.
>  
>  Having one guy at the top from whom all power flows.
> 
> Power does not "flow" from RMS.  Since you have used a political
> analogy:
> I think it is more akin to a constitutional monarchy.

I grew up in the UK, and am most familiar with the situation there; I
don't have experience of the Australian system.

>  
>  What's the process for replacing the guy at the top, if he's
> become a
>  liability to the project?  What would a healthy structure look
> like?
> 
> Many countries have a single person as head of state with no formally
> defined process for replacing him or her.   Most of those countries
> are not
> usually descibed as "dictatorships".

It depends on whether the head of state is a mere figurehead, or is
actually in charge.  In the UK, the Queen is nominally in charge of
"her government", but that mostly amounts to merely rubberstamping the
election result, albeit with some limited "soft power" in terms of
gravitas.  I think it remains to be seen if the monarchy will survive
her passing (if indeed the UK is still in its current form at that
point, but that's a whole other can of worms).

> Further, history has shown,  in cases where that head of state has
> been
> forcibly removed (eg France, Russia). the regime that replaced them
> turned
> out to be composed of murderous powermongers concerned with nobody's
> interest
> but their own. 

If we're continuing the political analogy, a counterexample might be
the United States.

>   I for one, will not sit back and let that heppen to GNU.

I think it's important to distinguish between the figurative and
literal here.

No one is literally calling for anyone's head.

Some of us don't want RMS in a leadership position in a project we're
associated with (be it the FSF or GNU, and thus, GCC).

My opinions, not my employer's, as usual.
Dave

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Brown]

On 07/04/2021 19:17, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 15:04, David Malcolm wrote:
>> For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to
>> build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be
>> permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a
>> self-appointed "chief GNUisance".  I hope the FSF can be saved, since
>> it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move.
> 
> This matches my feelings. If the FSF can be saved, fine, but I don't
> think GCC needs to remain associated with it.
> 
> If the GNU name is a problem, rename the projects to be simply "GCC",
> "Glibc", "GDB" etc without being an initialism.
> 

It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
Collection".  That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.

I am a gcc user, but not a developer or contributor.  I think it is
important to appreciate the good RMS has done for the software world,
and to accept history as it has happened rather than how we wish it had
been.  But going forward I don't think any project or organisation has
anything to gain by association with RMS, but will have much to lose.
To a large extent, he has done his job - the free and open source worlds
are now far too big and well-established to fail easily.  The time for
fanaticism, ideology and childish (ref. "Chief GNUisance") and
anti-social leadership is over - pragmatism, practicality and
cooperation are the way of the future.  It is time for the FSF to say to
RMS, "Thank you for all you have done.  Now move over for the next
generation, have a happy retirement, and please don't spoil the future
for the rest of us".  (We still need a few ideologists involved, to
remind us of important principles if anyone strays too far.  It's like a
healthy democratic parliament requiring a few representatives from the
greens, communists and other niche parties - you just don't want them
running the show.)

For me as a person, I cannot condone certain aspects of RMS' behaviour.
 I strongly disapprove of "proof by accusation and rumour" or "trial by
public opinion", but there is enough documented evidence in his own
publications and clearly established personal accounts that no one can
be in doubt that his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
FOSS community.  (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)

>From a practical viewpoint, I am concerned that opinions about him will
spread.  If the gcc project is not disassociated from anything involving
RMS, I fear the project will suffer from that assosiation, no matter how
unfair it may be.  At some point, someone in the public relations
department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and
will cut off all support from the top down.  The other companies will
immediately follow.  The gcc lead developers like Ian, Jonathan, Joseph
and Nathan will be given the choice of leaving gcc or leaving the job
that puts food on their tables.  gcc is not a hobby project run by
amateurs in their free time - it is a serious project that needs
commercial backing as well as the massive personal dedication it receives.


It is my opinion - entirely personal, and as a long and happy user
rather than a developer, and not speaking for my company or anyone else
- that gcc would be a stronger project if it were to separate from the
FSF and GNU.  It should have a "board of directors", or steering
committee, or something similar - but these should be selected
democratically and openly in some manner, perhaps by votes from major
contributors and/or subproject maintainers.  This board or committee
could have representatives from the gcc developers, from major
commercial contributors, from major users (Linux kernel people, Debian
folk, etc.), from target manufacturers (Intel, ARM, etc.), from ordinary
users - in short, it should represent the people who have most interest
in the future success of the project.

It might also make sense to gang together with other important toolchain
projects, such as the binutils folk.


David Brown
(A mostly happy embedded gcc user.)

Re: Default debug format for AVR

[David Edelsohn via Gcc]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 10:41 AM Jeff Law  wrote:
>
> On 4/8/2021 8:06 AM, Simon Marchi via Gcc wrote:
> > On 2021-04-08 9:11 a.m., David Edelsohn wrote:
>  AIX continues to use and support STABS, although it is transitioning
>  to DWARF.  If this is intended as a general statement about removal of
>  STABS support in GCC,
> >>> Yes, it is.
> >>>
> >>> Richard.
> >> Richard,
> >>
> >> It is inappropriate to unilaterally make this decision without
> >> discussion with all affected ports and maintainers, without warning,
> >> and without deprecation.  I request that you rescind this decision.
> >>
> >> It is somewhat ironic to act as a dictator when we are having a
> >> discussion about dictatorial behavior in GCC leadership.
> > I don't really want to start such a debate about GCC politics.  If stabs
> > is not ready to be deleted, that's fine.  But it would be good to go
> > through all targets for which it is the default (like avr), and see if
> > they are ready to be switched to DWARF.  That's a baby step towards
> > eventually deleting it.
>
> Agreed.  I'd bet AIX is the outlier here and that most, if not all,
> other ports that may currently be stabs-by-default can switch to
> dwarf-by-default with no significant fallout.  So we fix everything we
> can while we wait for AIX to move forward.

I am not requesting a continuation of support for STABS to be
obstinate.  AIX has some support for DWARF, but STABS continues to be
the primary debug format on AIX.  Binutils does not fully function on
AIX and the AIX native tools support for DWARF is incomplete.  Also,
AIX uses XCOFF file format, not ELF, so DWARF syntax needs to be
adapted and all of the tools need to agree on the way that AIX symbols
are represented in DWARF.

IBM is adding support for AIX to LLVM and LLVM does not support STABS
debugging, which has both exposed problems and is motivating work to
resolve the gaps, but the additional features and fixes require time
to implement and deploy.

I am eager to transition to DWARF on AIX, but I continue to ask that
the support not be removed until DWARF can be used as a complete
substitute on AIX.  I hope that full support for DWARF in AIX will be
completed in 2022 and removal of GCC support for STABS can be targeted
for GCC 13, not GCC 12.

Thanks, David

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 3:00 AM
> From: "David Brown" 
> To: "Jonathan Wakely" , "David Malcolm" 
> 
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Mark Wielaard" 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 07/04/2021 19:17, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 15:04, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to
> >> build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be
> >> permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a
> >> self-appointed "chief GNUisance".  I hope the FSF can be saved, since
> >> it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move.
> >
> > This matches my feelings. If the FSF can be saved, fine, but I don't
> > think GCC needs to remain associated with it.
> >
> > If the GNU name is a problem, rename the projects to be simply "GCC",
> > "Glibc", "GDB" etc without being an initialism.
> >
>
> It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
> Collection".  That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
> name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.
>
> I am a gcc user, but not a developer or contributor.  I think it is
> important to appreciate the good RMS has done for the software world,
> and to accept history as it has happened rather than how we wish it had
> been.  But going forward I don't think any project or organisation has
> anything to gain by association with RMS, but will have much to lose.
> To a large extent, he has done his job - the free and open source worlds
> are now far too big and well-established to fail easily.  The time for
> fanaticism, ideology and childish (ref. "Chief GNUisance") and
> anti-social leadership is over - pragmatism, practicality and
> cooperation are the way of the future.  It is time for the FSF to say to
> RMS, "Thank you for all you have done.  Now move over for the next
> generation, have a happy retirement, and please don't spoil the future
> for the rest of us".  (We still need a few ideologists involved, to
> remind us of important principles if anyone strays too far.  It's like a
> healthy democratic parliament requiring a few representatives from the
> greens, communists and other niche parties - you just don't want them
> running the show.)
>
> For me as a person, I cannot condone certain aspects of RMS' behaviour.
>  I strongly disapprove of "proof by accusation and rumour" or "trial by
> public opinion", but there is enough documented evidence in his own
> publications and clearly established personal accounts that no one can
> be in doubt that his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
> modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
> FOSS community.  (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)
>
> From a practical viewpoint, I am concerned that opinions about him will
> spread.  If the gcc project is not disassociated from anything involving
> RMS, I fear the project will suffer from that assosiation, no matter how
> unfair it may be.  At some point, someone in the public relations
> department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
> project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
> misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and
> will cut off all support from the top down.  The other companies will
> immediately follow.  The gcc lead developers like Ian, Jonathan, Joseph
> and Nathan will be given the choice of leaving gcc or leaving the job
> that puts food on their tables.  gcc is not a hobby project run by
> amateurs in their free time - it is a serious project that needs
> commercial backing as well as the massive personal dedication it receives.

If RMS in not indispensable, Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan are likewise
not indispensable.  Someone could that over and make their own project and
lead it how they wish.  There are many projects where the original author
knows best where to lead.  Classic examples include medical project Gnu
Health and my project.  Although can also mess a project up, mistakes are
allowed.  Einstein did not get his ideas from committees, neither did Stallman.
At work, I have never encountered any committee that done me any good.

A good book to read is Maskell's "The New Idea of a University".
If some think serious maintainers care about some public relations
group at IBM, Google, or Facebook, they are highly mistaken.  I
don't care.

Stallman can think whatever he likes.  There exist many valid opinions
on questions like exactly how young people can be to get married or be
depicted in pornography.  New Hampshire law allows 13 year olds to get
married.  The only problem is that many western people are too far
freaked out in relation to children, sex, and colonial guilt.

> It is my opinion - entirely personal, and as a long and happy user
> rather than a developer, and not speaking for my company or anyone else
> - that gcc would be a stronger project if 

Re: Default debug format for AVR

[David Edelsohn via Gcc]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 12:09 PM David Edelsohn  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 10:41 AM Jeff Law  wrote:
> >
> > On 4/8/2021 8:06 AM, Simon Marchi via Gcc wrote:
> > > On 2021-04-08 9:11 a.m., David Edelsohn wrote:
> >  AIX continues to use and support STABS, although it is transitioning
> >  to DWARF.  If this is intended as a general statement about removal of
> >  STABS support in GCC,
> > >>> Yes, it is.
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard.
> > >> Richard,
> > >>
> > >> It is inappropriate to unilaterally make this decision without
> > >> discussion with all affected ports and maintainers, without warning,
> > >> and without deprecation.  I request that you rescind this decision.
> > >>
> > >> It is somewhat ironic to act as a dictator when we are having a
> > >> discussion about dictatorial behavior in GCC leadership.
> > > I don't really want to start such a debate about GCC politics.  If stabs
> > > is not ready to be deleted, that's fine.  But it would be good to go
> > > through all targets for which it is the default (like avr), and see if
> > > they are ready to be switched to DWARF.  That's a baby step towards
> > > eventually deleting it.
> >
> > Agreed.  I'd bet AIX is the outlier here and that most, if not all,
> > other ports that may currently be stabs-by-default can switch to
> > dwarf-by-default with no significant fallout.  So we fix everything we
> > can while we wait for AIX to move forward.
>
> I am not requesting a continuation of support for STABS to be
> obstinate.  AIX has some support for DWARF, but STABS continues to be
> the primary debug format on AIX.  Binutils does not fully function on
> AIX and the AIX native tools support for DWARF is incomplete.  Also,
> AIX uses XCOFF file format, not ELF, so DWARF syntax needs to be
> adapted and all of the tools need to agree on the way that AIX symbols
> are represented in DWARF.
>
> IBM is adding support for AIX to LLVM and LLVM does not support STABS
> debugging, which has both exposed problems and is motivating work to
> resolve the gaps, but the additional features and fixes require time
> to implement and deploy.
>
> I am eager to transition to DWARF on AIX, but I continue to ask that
> the support not be removed until DWARF can be used as a complete
> substitute on AIX.  I hope that full support for DWARF in AIX will be
> completed in 2022 and removal of GCC support for STABS can be targeted
> for GCC 13, not GCC 12.
>

I have discussed the STABS debugging situation internally and the AIX
team has accepted that STABS support will be removed in GCC 12.  This
also will mean that I will remove the AIX 6.1 and AIX 7.1
configurations for GCC 12.

If you want to delete all STABS debugging support in Stage 1, go ahead.

Thanks, David

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Giacomo Tesio]

No, David, 

On April 8, 2021 3:00:57 PM UTC, David Brown  wrote:

>  (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)

you are not talking about Free Software, but Open Source.

FOSS, as a term, has been very successful to spread confusion.


> his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
> modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
> FOSS community.

In fact, I'm actively looking for alternatives to GCC (and LLVM) because I 
cannot trust a 
GCC anymore and I cannot review each and every change.

I won't contribute my port and in general will suggest people to look for 
alternatives.


But that's not a problem for you, because you do not actually care about real 
developers 
and users, just about the US corporations you effectively mentioned and now 
control 
several GNU projects:

> someone in the public relations
> department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of
> the project will get the impression ...

As you explained, GCC itself is completelly  controlled by few US corporations 
with 
strong and long term ties with the US DoD.

For sure, it's a big software. And a big threat to everybody outside the US.


Thanks for coming out.


Giacomo

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[John Darrington]

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:54:25AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
 
 I think it's important to distinguish between the figurative and
 literal here.
 
 No one is literally calling for anyone's head.


Nobody has explicitly done so.  However in the last 2 or 3 years there
has been a growing campaign of hatred.  The people feeding that
campaign are unhappy with things that RMS and others have said.
However they have taken it further than that.  These people seek
eliminate *anyone* who holds certain opinions - they don't care how
they get eliminated - so long as they go.  What's more, they cite
numerous putative moralistic justifications to give an air of
legitmacy to that hatred.  

Once such hatefulness becomes accepted, people DON'T any longer make that
literal--figurative distinction.
 
 Some of us don't want RMS in a leadership position in a project we're
 associated with (be it the FSF or GNU, and thus, GCC).

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.

 
 My opinions, not my employer's, as usual.

Then why do you write this from your employer's email?  That is like
writing it on the company letterhead.  I suggest that when speaking
for yourself you use your own email.

J'

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Rodgers]

On 2021-04-08 10:22, Giacomo Tesio wrote:


No, David,

On April 8, 2021 3:00:57 PM UTC, David Brown  
wrote:



(And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)


you are not talking about Free Software, but Open Source.

FOSS, as a term, has been very successful to spread confusion.


his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
FOSS community.


In fact, I'm actively looking for alternatives to GCC (and LLVM) 
because I cannot trust a

GCC anymore and I cannot review each and every change.

I won't contribute my port and in general will suggest people to look 
for alternatives.




I've had some luck with the compiler offerings from Intel and Microsoft 
and I understand IBM has a compiler, and of course there's Nvidia's 
offerings (formerly PGI).


But that's not a problem for you, because you do not actually care 
about real developers
and users, just about the US corporations you effectively mentioned and 
now control

several GNU projects:


someone in the public relations
department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of
the project will get the impression ...


As you explained, GCC itself is completelly  controlled by few US 
corporations with

strong and long term ties with the US DoD.

For sure, it's a big software. And a big threat to everybody outside 
the US.


Thanks for coming out.

Giacomo

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Brown]

On 08/04/2021 18:43, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> 
>> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 3:00 AM
>> From: "David Brown" 
>> To: "Jonathan Wakely" , "David Malcolm" 
>> 
>> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Mark Wielaard" 
>> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>>

>> From a practical viewpoint, I am concerned that opinions about him will
>> spread.  If the gcc project is not disassociated from anything involving
>> RMS, I fear the project will suffer from that assosiation, no matter how
>> unfair it may be.  At some point, someone in the public relations
>> department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
>> project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
>> misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and
>> will cut off all support from the top down.  The other companies will
>> immediately follow.  The gcc lead developers like Ian, Jonathan, Joseph
>> and Nathan will be given the choice of leaving gcc or leaving the job
>> that puts food on their tables.  gcc is not a hobby project run by
>> amateurs in their free time - it is a serious project that needs
>> commercial backing as well as the massive personal dedication it receives.
> 
> If RMS in not indispensable, Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan are likewise
> not indispensable.  Someone could that over and make their own project and
> lead it how they wish.  There are many projects where the original author
> knows best where to lead.  Classic examples include medical project Gnu
> Health and my project.  Although can also mess a project up, mistakes are
> allowed.  Einstein did not get his ideas from committees, neither did 
> Stallman.
> At work, I have never encountered any committee that done me any good.
> 

RMS was key to getting GNU and the whole concept of Free Software off
the ground.  He was key to the initial development of several important
pieces of software.  He is no longer key to the development of any
software in a technical sense, nor is he key to the philosophical or
ideological parts of the process.

I don't think that any of Ian, Jonathan, and the others are
indispensable.  But I think all of them together are.  If any one or two
of the key gcc developers left the project, life would go on.  If my
feared scenario occurred and many or all of the current gcc developers
who are employed by major IT and hardware companies had to leave, the
project would be dead.

> A good book to read is Maskell's "The New Idea of a University".
> If some think serious maintainers care about some public relations
> group at IBM, Google, or Facebook, they are highly mistaken.  I
> don't care.

As I said, I am a user.  I don't speak for the main developers of gcc,
or the maintainers of subprojects.  I expect that they do care about the
attitudes of the companies that employ them, at the very least.

> 
> Stallman can think whatever he likes.  There exist many valid opinions
> on questions like exactly how young people can be to get married or be
> depicted in pornography.  New Hampshire law allows 13 year olds to get
> married.  The only problem is that many western people are too far
> freaked out in relation to children, sex, and colonial guilt.
> 

Stallman can indeed think whatever he likes, in that no one else can
decide his opinions for him.  He cannot /do/ whatever he likes - I
believe (but do not claim to be able to prove) that some of his past
actions would fall foul of laws against sexual harassment.

However, those of us who think differently on such matters - and that
is, I think, the solid majority of people (not just westerns) - will not
want anything to do with a person who holds such opinions and encourages
such attitudes.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 6:21 AM
> 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 10:54:25AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>
>  I think it's important to distinguish between the figurative and
>  literal here.
>
>  No one is literally calling for anyone's head.
>
>
> Nobody has explicitly done so.  However in the last 2 or 3 years there
> has been a growing campaign of hatred.  The people feeding that
> campaign are unhappy with things that RMS and others have said.
> However they have taken it further than that.  These people seek
> eliminate *anyone* who holds certain opinions - they don't care how
> they get eliminated - so long as they go.  What's more, they cite
> numerous putative moralistic justifications to give an air of
> legitmacy to that hatred.
>
> Once such hatefulness becomes accepted, people DON'T any longer make that
> literal--figurative distinction.
>
>  Some of us don't want RMS in a leadership position in a project we're
>  associated with (be it the FSF or GNU, and thus, GCC).
>
> 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.
>
>
>  My opinions, not my employer's, as usual.
>
> Then why do you write this from your employer's email?  That is like
> writing it on the company letterhead.  I suggest that when speaking
> for yourself you use your own email.

Fair points John.

> J'
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Gabriel Ravier via Gcc]

On 4/8/21 6:43 PM, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:

Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 3:00 AM
From: "David Brown" 
To: "Jonathan Wakely" , "David Malcolm" 

Cc: "GCC Development" , "Mark Wielaard" 
Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF

On 07/04/2021 19:17, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 15:04, David Malcolm wrote:

For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to
build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be
permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a
self-appointed "chief GNUisance".  I hope the FSF can be saved, since
it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move.

This matches my feelings. If the FSF can be saved, fine, but I don't
think GCC needs to remain associated with it.

If the GNU name is a problem, rename the projects to be simply "GCC",
"Glibc", "GDB" etc without being an initialism.


It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
Collection".  That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.

I am a gcc user, but not a developer or contributor.  I think it is
important to appreciate the good RMS has done for the software world,
and to accept history as it has happened rather than how we wish it had
been.  But going forward I don't think any project or organisation has
anything to gain by association with RMS, but will have much to lose.
To a large extent, he has done his job - the free and open source worlds
are now far too big and well-established to fail easily.  The time for
fanaticism, ideology and childish (ref. "Chief GNUisance") and
anti-social leadership is over - pragmatism, practicality and
cooperation are the way of the future.  It is time for the FSF to say to
RMS, "Thank you for all you have done.  Now move over for the next
generation, have a happy retirement, and please don't spoil the future
for the rest of us".  (We still need a few ideologists involved, to
remind us of important principles if anyone strays too far.  It's like a
healthy democratic parliament requiring a few representatives from the
greens, communists and other niche parties - you just don't want them
running the show.)

For me as a person, I cannot condone certain aspects of RMS' behaviour.
  I strongly disapprove of "proof by accusation and rumour" or "trial by
public opinion", but there is enough documented evidence in his own
publications and clearly established personal accounts that no one can
be in doubt that his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
FOSS community.  (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)

 From a practical viewpoint, I am concerned that opinions about him will
spread.  If the gcc project is not disassociated from anything involving
RMS, I fear the project will suffer from that assosiation, no matter how
unfair it may be.  At some point, someone in the public relations
department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and
will cut off all support from the top down.  The other companies will
immediately follow.  The gcc lead developers like Ian, Jonathan, Joseph
and Nathan will be given the choice of leaving gcc or leaving the job
that puts food on their tables.  gcc is not a hobby project run by
amateurs in their free time - it is a serious project that needs
commercial backing as well as the massive personal dedication it receives.

If RMS in not indispensable, Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan are likewise
not indispensable.  Someone could that over and make their own project and
lead it how they wish.  There are many projects where the original author
knows best where to lead.  Classic examples include medical project Gnu
Health and my project.  Although can also mess a project up, mistakes are
allowed.  Einstein did not get his ideas from committees, neither did Stallman.
At work, I have never encountered any committee that done me any good.


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

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi David,

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:04:21AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 00:22 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > I admit it isn't looking very good and their last announcement is
> > certainly odd: https://status.fsf.org/notice/3833062
> > 
> > But apparently the board is still meeting this week to discuss and
> > might provide a better statement about the way out of this. So lets
> > give them a couple more days before writing them off completely.
> > 
> > > Is there any incident where FSF being the copyright holder for GCC
> > > has
> > > made a difference?
> > 
> > Yes, at least in my experience it has been helpful that the FSF held
> > copyright of code that had been assigned by various individuals and
> > companies. It allowed the merger of GNU Classpath and libgcj for
> > example. There have been various intances where it was helpful that
> > the FSF could unilatrally adjust the license terms especially when
> > the
> > original contributor couldn't be found or didn't exist (as company)
> > anymore.
> 
> This benefit arises from having a single entity own the copyright in
> the code.  It doesn't necessarily have to be the FSF to gain this
> benefit; it just happens that the FSF currently owns the copyright on
> the code.

Yes, I admit that it doesn't have to be the FSF specifically. But
having a shared copyright pool held by one legal entity has benefits.

> Another, transitional approach might be to find another Free Software
> non-profit and for contributors to start assigning copyright on ongoing
> work to that other non-profit.  That way there would be only two
> copyright holders on the code; if the FSF somehow survives its current
> death-spiral then the other nonprofit could assign copyright back to
> the FSF;  if it doesn't, well, we've already got bigger problems.

Yes, having all new copyrights pooled together so we have just two
copyright holders would provide most of the same benefits. And makes
it easier to deal with the legacy FSF copyrights since there would be
just one legal entity having to deal with them instead of each
individual copyright holder on their own.

If it has to come to this then we could take a look at what the
Conservancy already does for aggregating copyright for their member
projects, the Linux kernel and Debian project:
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/

I like their idea of having a counsel of developers that gets involved
in any action taken on behave of the collective:
https://sfconservancy.org/docs/blank_linux-enforcement-agreement.pdf

> > And it is really helpful that we don't have to ask permission of
> > every
> > individual contributor to be able to create the GCC manual (because
> > the GPL code and GFDL text could otherwise not be combined) but that
> > the FSF can grant an exception to one of the developers to create it.
> 
> Alternatively, the copyright holder could relicense the documentation
> to a license that is explicitly compatible with the GPL, such as the
> GPL itself, and not require us to jump through hoops.  (Or we could
> start a non-GFDL body of documentation under a different copyright
> holder, but I'm not volunteering for that effort).  In case it's not
> clear, I think the GFDL is a terrible license, and that it's always a
> mistake to use it for software documentation.

Yes, I am not clear on why this (relicensing the documentation under
the GPL) hasn't been done yet. Is this something the Steering
Committee could start a discussion on with the FSF?

> > > Are there any GPL violations involving GCC code
> > > that were resolved only because all copyright resides with a single
> > > entity, that couldn't have been resolved on behalf of individual
> > > copyright holders?
> > 
> > I think it has been very helpful preventing those violations. If you
> > only have individual copyright holders instead of an organisation
> > with
> > the means to actually resolve such violations people pay much more
> > attention to play by the rules. See for example the linux kernel
> > project. I believe there are so many GPL violations precisely because
> > almost no individual has the means to take up a case.
> 
> Again, the "single entity" doesn't need to be the FSF.

It doesn't, but it would be convenient if it was possible.  We have to
see what the board does to win the confidence of use GNU hackers back.
They still have to answer the questions we sent them about the GNU/FSF
relationship:
https://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2019/12/27/proposals-for-the-new-gnu-fsf-relationship/
Maybe if the whole board is replaced we can finally have that conversation.

> It's not clear to me to what extent "GNU" is a thing that exists.  I
> agree with much of Andy Wingo's October 2019 blog post:
> http://www.wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and-gnu
> 
> IMHO, "GNU" can mean various things:
> - the small family of "g"-prefixed toolchain/low-level projects (gcc,
> glibc, gdb) that work together and attend the GNU Too

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Brown]

On 08/04/2021 19:22, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> No, David, 
> 
> On April 8, 2021 3:00:57 PM UTC, David Brown  wrote:
> 
>>  (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)
> 
> you are not talking about Free Software, but Open Source.
> 
> FOSS, as a term, has been very successful to spread confusion.
> 

You have snipped the context.  Let me repeat it:

"""
... no one can
be in doubt that [RMS's] attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
FOSS community.  (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)
"""

For most people that have enough interest in software to be aware of the
concepts of free and/or open source software, lump them together.  That
applies to users and developers.  To the majority of gcc users, they do
not care whether the project refers to itself as "free software" or
"open source software".  They often care that it is easily available at
zero cost (though some pay for it - I and my company have, at times,
bought gcc packages), and they like the fact that all the source code is
available even if they don't look at the source themselves.

But whoever you blame for spreading confusion, or for artificially
creating distinctions that rarely matter (this viewpoint has its
supporters too), the fact remains that the mix-up is real.  In almost
all circumstances, to almost all people, it is all "FOSS".  And the GNU
project, along with Linux, LibreOffice (or still OpenOffice, in most
people's minds), Firefox, and a few other big projects are viewed
together as a group and the opposite of "big company" software such as
MS Windows and Office, Apple software, and Adobe Photoshop (to take some
well-known examples).  The attitudes of GNU leaders have an influence on
all of this, as do other public leader figures such as Linus Torvalds.
Their influence (for good or bad) extends well outside the direct
hierarchy of their official positions within their projects.

> 
>> his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
>> modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
>> FOSS community.
> 
> In fact, I'm actively looking for alternatives to GCC (and LLVM) because I 
> cannot trust a 
> GCC anymore and I cannot review each and every change.
> 

That is your choice, obviously.  I don't agree with your points
expressed in this list so far, but you make your own decisions here.
Call me naïve, but I trust the maintainers of gcc to make good technical
decisions and make changes that improve the compiler suite.

I do think it is entirely possible that - for example - Facebook will
pay an employee to add features to gcc with the specific aim of
improving the efficiency of the code Facebook uses.  I think that would
be entirely reasonable, and I would be quite happy with it - either the
changes will coincidentally improve that is useful to me, or it will do
it no harm.  I think it is /implausible/ that any company would exert an
influence over gcc in order to make it worse for competitors or other
users.  This is an open source project (in addition to being free
software) - it is hard to make hidden changes when all changes are
reviewed and visible to many people.  I don't believe in conspiracy
theories - they require the cooperation of too many people who would
disagree and make a noise.

(Mistakes happen, and attacks from outside occasionally happen in open
source projects, but that's another matter.)

> I won't contribute my port and in general will suggest people to look for 
> alternatives.
> 
> 
> But that's not a problem for you, because you do not actually care about real 
> developers 
> and users, just about the US corporations you effectively mentioned and now 
> control 
> several GNU projects:

No, I have no particular interest in any companies (other than loyalty
to my own company).  I am not an American, nor do I live in America - I
am Scottish and live in Norway.  Not that that matters here.

And yes, I care about the gcc developers and their ability and freedom
to work as they want on the project.  I care about potential new
developers too - and I do not want to see them reject the idea of
working for gcc (or any other project) because they perceive a foul
atmosphere of bullying, sexual harassment or misogyny.  Nor would I want
anyone to avoid contributing to gcc because of perceived bias for or
against any particular country, culture, religion, or any other aspect
of life that has no relevance for code development.

And yes, I care about users - I am one, having used gcc for some 25
years on perhaps a dozen different targets.

I don't think any corporations control any GNU projects (with which I am
familiar) in the sense of deciding what goes into them, who works on
them, what direction they should take, or anything of that sort.  But a
big development project takes resources - it costs a lot of money.  This
usually comes from corporations that have an interest in the project's
success - compa

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 7:48 AM
> From: "Mark Wielaard" 
> To: "David Malcolm" 
> Cc: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> Hi David,
>
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:04:21AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 00:22 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > I admit it isn't looking very good and their last announcement is
> > > certainly odd: https://status.fsf.org/notice/3833062
> > >
> > > But apparently the board is still meeting this week to discuss and
> > > might provide a better statement about the way out of this. So lets
> > > give them a couple more days before writing them off completely.
> > >
> > > > Is there any incident where FSF being the copyright holder for GCC
> > > > has
> > > > made a difference?
> > >
> > > Yes, at least in my experience it has been helpful that the FSF held
> > > copyright of code that had been assigned by various individuals and
> > > companies. It allowed the merger of GNU Classpath and libgcj for
> > > example. There have been various intances where it was helpful that
> > > the FSF could unilatrally adjust the license terms especially when
> > > the
> > > original contributor couldn't be found or didn't exist (as company)
> > > anymore.
> >
> > This benefit arises from having a single entity own the copyright in
> > the code.  It doesn't necessarily have to be the FSF to gain this
> > benefit; it just happens that the FSF currently owns the copyright on
> > the code.
>
> Yes, I admit that it doesn't have to be the FSF specifically. But
> having a shared copyright pool held by one legal entity has benefits.
>
> > Another, transitional approach might be to find another Free Software
> > non-profit and for contributors to start assigning copyright on ongoing
> > work to that other non-profit.  That way there would be only two
> > copyright holders on the code; if the FSF somehow survives its current
> > death-spiral then the other nonprofit could assign copyright back to
> > the FSF;  if it doesn't, well, we've already got bigger problems.
>
> Yes, having all new copyrights pooled together so we have just two
> copyright holders would provide most of the same benefits. And makes
> it easier to deal with the legacy FSF copyrights since there would be
> just one legal entity having to deal with them instead of each
> individual copyright holder on their own.
>
> If it has to come to this then we could take a look at what the
> Conservancy already does for aggregating copyright for their member
> projects, the Linux kernel and Debian project:
> https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/
>
> I like their idea of having a counsel of developers that gets involved
> in any action taken on behave of the collective:
> https://sfconservancy.org/docs/blank_linux-enforcement-agreement.pdf
>
> > > And it is really helpful that we don't have to ask permission of
> > > every
> > > individual contributor to be able to create the GCC manual (because
> > > the GPL code and GFDL text could otherwise not be combined) but that
> > > the FSF can grant an exception to one of the developers to create it.
> >
> > Alternatively, the copyright holder could relicense the documentation
> > to a license that is explicitly compatible with the GPL, such as the
> > GPL itself, and not require us to jump through hoops.  (Or we could
> > start a non-GFDL body of documentation under a different copyright
> > holder, but I'm not volunteering for that effort).  In case it's not
> > clear, I think the GFDL is a terrible license, and that it's always a
> > mistake to use it for software documentation.
>
> Yes, I am not clear on why this (relicensing the documentation under
> the GPL) hasn't been done yet. Is this something the Steering
> Committee could start a discussion on with the FSF?
>
> > > > Are there any GPL violations involving GCC code
> > > > that were resolved only because all copyright resides with a single
> > > > entity, that couldn't have been resolved on behalf of individual
> > > > copyright holders?
> > >
> > > I think it has been very helpful preventing those violations. If you
> > > only have individual copyright holders instead of an organisation
> > > with
> > > the means to actually resolve such violations people pay much more
> > > attention to play by the rules. See for example the linux kernel
> > > project. I believe there are so many GPL violations precisely because
> > > almost no individual has the means to take up a case.
> >
> > Again, the "single entity" doesn't need to be the FSF.
>
> It doesn't, but it would be convenient if it was possible.  We have to
> see what the board does to win the confidence of use GNU hackers back.
> They still have to answer the questions we sent them about the GNU/FSF
> relationship:
> https://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2019/12/27/proposals-for-the-new-gnu-fsf-relationship/
> Maybe if the whole board is replaced we can finally have that conversation.
>
> > It's not clear to me to what ex

gcc-8-20210408 is now available

[GCC Administrator via Gcc]

Snapshot gcc-8-20210408 is now available on
  https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20210408/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.

This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch releases/gcc-8 
revision 3a4f14984603b0a9969bb71d3cd1a3acc225d107

You'll find:

 gcc-8-20210408.tar.xzComplete GCC

  SHA256=d09559d3bb4a6322326e94ed119b3bd6569fee8a5e65f19778deafd08a4c484e
  SHA1=6c23725ef4b76e92780fbb202d1406a1234eba0a

Diffs from 8-20210401 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory.

When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-8
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

[David Malcolm via Gcc]

On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 20:21 +0200, John Darrington wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:54:25AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: 

[...]

>  Some of us don't want RMS in a leadership position in a project
> we're
>  associated with (be it the FSF or GNU, and thus, GCC).
> 
> 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.

>  
>  My opinions, not my employer's, as usual.
> 
> Then why do you write this from your employer's email?

My employer gives me permission.

>   That is like
> writing it on the company letterhead.

I disagree.

>   I suggest that when speaking
> for yourself you use your own email.

Given the reaction that some have faced for questioning RMS, I'd prefer
to keep that address private.

As before, these are my opinions, not my employer's.

Dave

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alfred M. Szmidt via Gcc]

These discussions are slightly off topic for gcc@, I'd suggest they
are moved to gnu-misc-discuss@ or some other more suitable list.

   To me GNU is people wanting to create a software system that respects
   users freedom according to the GNU Social Contract:
   https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract

This is your own personal web site, and does not describe the GNU
project nor host any documents related to it.  The GNU project doesn't
have a "social contract", nor does it require anyone to sign or agree
to such a document to contribute, or take on the task of being a GNU
maintainer.  If you want to read about what the GNU project is, how it
runs, and other such interesting tid bits: http://www.gnu.org

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[John Darrington]

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.

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!

I'm glad that you're going to continue to contribute to GCC.

J'