Re: Copyright Assignment Form
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 03:37 Liu Hao via Gcc, wrote: > 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. > I don't about David, but the reason I take it off-list is that there is more than one form that might be appropriate, depending on the contributor's situation. The forms are available online (e.g. in the gnulib repo) but discussing what is suitable, and whether a disclaimer from an employer is needed, doesn't need to be done in public. The contributor might not want to discuss who their employer is on the public list, for example.
Re: GCC 10.3 Released (successful bootstraps for Darwin versions)
Richard Biener wrote: The GNU Compiler Collection version 10.3 has been released. I believe that this is the best release for Darwin in some time, it includes a) The first released version to support Darwin20 (macOS 11) b) Fixes for some long-standing serious bugs affecting older OS versions --- I have successfully bootstrapped the following configurations for Darwin: i686-apple-darwin8 : NOTEs: 1/ this requires at least the toolchain from xcode 3.1.4 to succeed (GCC 7.5 tested) 2/ two small patches for Ada and libstdc++ https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681030.html i686-apple-darwin9 : OK with xcode 3.1.4 or later GCC (5 tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681031.html i686-apple-darwin10 : OK with xcode 3.2.6 or later GCC (5 tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681032.html powerpc-apple-darwin9 : OK with xcode 3.1.4 or later GCC (5 tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681033.html x86_64-apple-darwin10 : OK with xcode 3.2.6 or later GCC (5 tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681034.html x86_64-apple-darwin11 : OK with xcode clang or GCC (7.5 tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681035.html x86_64-apple-darwin12 : OK with xcode clang or GCC (7.5 tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681036.html x86_64-apple-darwin13 : OK with xcode clang or GCC (7.5 tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681037.html x86_64-apple-darwin14 : OK with xcode clang or GCC (7.5 tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681038.html x86_64-apple-darwin15 : OK with xcode clang or GCC (7.5 tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681039.html x86_64-apple-darwin16 : OK with xcode clang or GCC (7.5 tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681040.html x86_64-apple-darwin17 : OK with xcode clang or GCC (7.5 tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681041.html x86_64-apple-darwin18 : OK with xcode clang or GCC (7.5. tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681042.html x86_64-apple-darwin19 [AVX512] : OK with xcode clang or GCC (7.5 tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681043.html x86_64-apple-darwin19 : OK with xcode clang or GCC (7.5 tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681044.html x86_64-apple-darwin20 : OK with xcode clang or GCC (7.5 tested) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-April/681045.html thanks Iain
Warnings in gcc build
When compiling the last few releases of GCC I get many warnings in format strings of the form: ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc: In member function 'void ana::svalue_id::dump_node_name_to_pp(pretty_printer*) const': ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:205:19: warning: unquoted identifier or keyword 'svalue_' in format [-Wformat-diag] 205 | pp_printf (pp, "svalue_%i", m_idx); | ^~~ ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc: In member function 'void ana::region_id::dump_node_name_to_pp(pretty_printer*) const': ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:235:19: warning: unquoted identifier or keyword 'region_' in format [-Wformat-diag] 235 | pp_printf (pp, "region_%i", m_idx); | ^~~ ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc: In member function 'virtual void ana::svalue::dump_dot_to_pp(const ana::region_model&, ana::svalue_id, pretty_printer*) const': ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:377:26: warning: spurious trailing punctuation sequence '="' in format [-Wformat-diag] 377 | pp_printf (pp, " [label=\""); | ^~~ ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:377:20: warning: unbalanced punctuation character '[' in format [-Wformat-diag] 377 | pp_printf (pp, " [label=\""); |^ ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc: In member function 'virtual void ana::region::dump_dot_to_pp(const ana::region_model&, ana::region_id, pretty_printer*) const': ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:1382:72: warning: spurious trailing punctuation sequence '="' in format [-Wformat-diag] 1382 | printf (pp, " [shape=none,margin=0,style=filled,fillcolor=%s,label=\"", | ^~~ These warnings seem spurious to me. Are these warnings truly spurious or is there som part of the standard I don't understand? --Sidney Marshall
For contributing into GCC website or wwwdocs
Dear mam/sir. I am Veerpal Kaur, I have good knowledge of HTML, CSS, Bootstrap, JavaScript, Reactjs, SQL, MySQL, MongoDB, etc. Now I want to contribute to the GCC Web site and want to make it more user-friendly. I have one problem that I am unable to find a mentor for this project. Please mam/sir help me so that I can contribute to this project. Please, mam/sir. I request you to provide the email of gcc-cvs-wwwdocs or Website mentor (Jeff Law) and the online repository where this project is hosted https://gcc.gnu.org/about.html#git. Email: ranotaveerpa...@gmail.com My GitHub user name is: https://github.com/Veerpal363 Thank you very much. Name Veerpal Kaur.
Re: Warnings in gcc build
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 at 11:30, Sidney Marshall wrote: > > When compiling the last few releases of GCC I get many warnings in > format strings of the form: > > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc: In member function > 'void ana::svalue_id::dump_node_name_to_pp(pretty_printer*) const': > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:205:19: warning: > unquoted identifier or keyword 'svalue_' in format [-Wformat-diag] >205 | pp_printf (pp, "svalue_%i", m_idx); >| ^~~ > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc: In member function > 'void ana::region_id::dump_node_name_to_pp(pretty_printer*) const': > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:235:19: warning: > unquoted identifier or keyword 'region_' in format [-Wformat-diag] >235 | pp_printf (pp, "region_%i", m_idx); >| ^~~ > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc: In member function > 'virtual void ana::svalue::dump_dot_to_pp(const ana::region_model&, > ana::svalue_id, pretty_printer*) const': > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:377:26: warning: > spurious trailing punctuation sequence '="' in format [-Wformat-diag] >377 | pp_printf (pp, " [label=\""); >| ^~~ > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:377:20: warning: > unbalanced punctuation character '[' in format [-Wformat-diag] >377 | pp_printf (pp, " [label=\""); >|^ > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc: In member function > 'virtual void ana::region::dump_dot_to_pp(const ana::region_model&, > ana::region_id, pretty_printer*) const': > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:1382:72: warning: > spurious trailing punctuation sequence '="' in format [-Wformat-diag] > 1382 | printf (pp, " > [shape=none,margin=0,style=filled,fillcolor=%s,label=\"", >| ^~~ > > These warnings seem spurious to me. > > Are these warnings truly spurious or is there som part of the > standard I don't understand? These are nothing to do with the standard. These are internal warnings produced by GCC checking its own diagnostic strings (i.e. the strings used for warnings and errors that GCC prints when compiling your code). There are checks to ensure we don't print errors with mismatched quotes, or unclosed parentheses. Sometimes the checks give false positives, e.g. because a diagnostic is built up in pieces, and the checks only look at a single piece at a time, rather than the finished result. You can ignore them.
Re: For contributing into GCC website or wwwdocs
I've already replied to this user more than once and tried to explain how to submit patches. I suggest we ignore them now. On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 at 11:42, Veerpal Kaur via Gcc wrote: > > Dear mam/sir. > > I am Veerpal Kaur, I have good knowledge of HTML, CSS, Bootstrap, > JavaScript, Reactjs, SQL, MySQL, MongoDB, etc. Now I want to contribute to > the GCC Web site and want to make it more user-friendly. > > I have one problem that I am unable to find a mentor for this project. > Please mam/sir help me so that I can contribute to this project. > > Please, mam/sir. I request you to provide the email of gcc-cvs-wwwdocs or > Website mentor (Jeff Law) and the online repository where this project is > hosted https://gcc.gnu.org/about.html#git. > > Email: ranotaveerpa...@gmail.com > My GitHub user name is: > https://github.com/Veerpal363 > > > Thank you very much. > Name Veerpal Kaur.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
Jonathan Wakely via Gcc writes: > You are clueless about what the SC actually does, or the control they > have over GCC. I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC does.
Re: Copyright Assignment Form
在 2021/4/10 下午3:22, Jonathan Wakely 写道: I don't about David, but the reason I take it off-list is that there is more than one form that might be appropriate, depending on the contributor's situation. The forms are available online (e.g. in the gnulib repo) but discussing what is suitable, and whether a disclaimer from an employer is needed, doesn't need to be done in public. The contributor might not want to discuss who their employer is on the public list, for example. Thanks for your information. -- Best regards, Liu Hao OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On 09/04/2021 20:02, Christopher Dimech wrote: > >> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:01 AM >> From: "David Brown" >> >> 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. There is a big difference between suppression or censorship, and wanting people in leadership positions to be representative of the values of the group they lead. RMS can have all the opinions he wants, and act has he will (until he ends up arrested for it), but if he is to remain a representative for others (FSF, GNU and/or GCC), then he has a duty to act appropriately according to the values those organisations think are important. I think that you mix up freedom and free reins. Freedom is not anarchy. Being free from sexism, prejudice, bullying, and harassment are as important as freedom of speech or politics. >> >> 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 have said very clearly that I am a user of gcc - not a developer, and the opinions I express are very much my own. The does not hinder me from saying what I think the free software world (developers and users) want or need. I have not made any claims or suggestions that I am privy to the minds of others, or that my opinions and ideas are in any way more weighty than those of others.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 12:57 Pankaj Jangid, wrote: > Jonathan Wakely via Gcc writes: > > > You are clueless about what the SC actually does, or the control they > > have over GCC. > > I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC > does. > https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html They make decisions, they don't get to insert NSA backdoors on behalf of their employers without the rest of the project being aware. The idea that the SC members have a special ability to sneak such a change in, any more than any contributor, is just stupid. But I don't think he's seriously worried about that, he's just a Concern Troll raising nonsense concerns to derail any useful discussion from happening. The sooner he moves on to a new compiler he trusts, the better for everybody involved in GCC. >
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On 09/04/2021 20:36, 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 allegory so > this comment should be directed in his direction. Fair enough. > > 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. > I did not take the comment as an insult - I merely presumed that when Christopher says someone is acting like the Russian or Chinese government, he does not mean it in a good way. (His later posts make that entirely clear.) I simply don't want to see this turn into a political discussion. I agree with you entirely that it is not helpful to perceive insults, prejudice or bigotry - in general, it is important to keep the discussion polite and try to remain focused. That is what I wanted to do by asking Christopher to avoid politics.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
Hello there As a long time GCC user, who is also a father to teenage children, I would very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also openly exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not* associated with the GCC project. It does not matter to me what kind of control that person exerts on the project, if any. What matters to me is association, even if indirect one (other than historical). This aside, I also happen to be one of very many developers in a corporate setting, able to exert a small amount of pressure to entirely switch my employer's toolset from GCC to Clang (which we already use for many projects), if I consider the direction that GCC takes (technical or otherwise) not favourable to us. For this to happen it would be enough for GCC to lose only a few of the key contributors, like for example Jonathan Wakely, Nathan Sidwell, Marek Polacek. It does not have to lose many contributors at all. In fact, since my employer runs RedHat, we might just follow the direction that RedHat takes with their developer tools in the future - given their stance on the matter and the current GCC association, as well as possible loss of major contributors in GCC, I wouldn't take it for granted that they will keep supporting GCC forever. Also, it is not called "cancel culture". It is called "actions have consequences". That's all, B. Kozicki
Re: GCC association with the FSF
Gabriel Ravier via Gcc writes: >> 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. >> > 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. I have never said that the project will survive without maintainers. I just asked you to count me as well. Success of the project also depends on how widely it is used. And you need to look at the reasons why people are using it. > 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. People who care for “Copyleft” were already rare. But people joined; despite the shortcomings people used “Libre” tools. Something must have triggered them to participate as users, as developers. What could be that? > 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 I never said that corporations are not important. But it is not charity. It is the benefit that they got out of GCC. After LLVM, this will also be a big challenge. Let us watch the funding trends in the coming years. I will emphasize on getting those people onboard who are associated with the cause. And when I say this, I talk about both sides of the spectrum - the developers as well as the users. With the right set of emotionally connected community of people, you can do wonders. Anyway, I am not against your view that maintainers are important. They certainly are.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 13:50 David Brown, wrote: > On 09/04/2021 20:02, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > > >> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:01 AM > >> From: "David Brown" > > >> > >> 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. > > There is a big difference between suppression or censorship, and wanting > people in leadership positions to be representative of the values of the > group they lead. RMS can have all the opinions he wants, and act has he > will (until he ends up arrested for it), but if he is to remain a > representative for others (FSF, GNU and/or GCC), then he has a duty to > act appropriately according to the values those organisations think are > important. > > I think that you mix up freedom and free reins. Freedom is not anarchy. > Being free from sexism, prejudice, bullying, and harassment are as > important as freedom of speech or politics. > > >> > >> 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 have said very clearly that I am a user of gcc - not a developer, and > the opinions I express are very much my own. The does not hinder me > from saying what I think the free software world (developers and users) > want or need. I have not made any claims or suggestions that I am privy > to the minds of others, or that my opinions and ideas are in any way > more weighty than those of others. > David is a frequent contributor to the mailing lists, helping other users with their questions about GCC. That's a lot more than can be said for most of the new posters who have appeared here for the first time recently, trying to influence how we run the project.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc wrote: I would very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also openly exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not* associated with the GCC project. It does not matter to me what kind of control that person exerts on the project, if any. What matters to me is association, even if indirect one (other than historical). I suppose I feel the same. I would also prefer it if all people involved with GCC (and all my other interests) did not do or say things which made me uncomfortable. I don't however feel that I have the right to call for anyone to be excluded simply because I'm uncomfortable with that person's words or deeds (ie. "consider them abhorent"). That would be an utterly dystopian, world. Of course persons should not use a project's name or infrastructure to make comments unrelated to the project. But if that person wishes to make a comment under his/her own name in an unrelated forum, that is his/her right. Even if we consider them abhorrent, we must respect the rights of others. J'
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:27 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 20:02, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > > >> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:01 AM > >> From: "David Brown" > > >> > >> 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. > > There is a big difference between suppression or censorship, and wanting > people in leadership positions to be representative of the values of the > group they lead. RMS can have all the opinions he wants, and act has he > will (until he ends up arrested for it), but if he is to remain a > representative for others (FSF, GNU and/or GCC), then he has a duty to > act appropriately according to the values those organisations think are > important. If you look at the history of computing you will find that it was mostly crooks and people of very mixed kind of qualities. Not al all saints. Many of them quite unscrupolous and not very clever. And still they managed to do great things. So it tells a kid: They could do that, why can't you? That was certainly what turned me on. Freedom 0 also says "The freedom to run a program as you wish, for any purpose". Should we get our ideas from politicians and bureaucrats; or from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernest Hemingway, Aldous Huxley, Marie-Henri Beyle, and Emily Jane Brontë? From the latter of course! > I think that you mix up freedom and free reins. Freedom is not anarchy. > Being free from sexism, prejudice, bullying, and harassment are as > important as freedom of speech or politics. > > >> > >> 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 have said very clearly that I am a user of gcc - not a developer, and > the opinions I express are very much my own. The does not hinder me > from saying what I think the free software world (developers and users) > want or need. I have not made any claims or suggestions that I am privy > to the minds of others, or that my opinions and ideas are in any way > more weighty than those of others. > >
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On 2021-04-10 05:35, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 12:57 Pankaj Jangid, wrote: Jonathan Wakely via Gcc writes: You are clueless about what the SC actually does, or the control they have over GCC. I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC does. https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html They make decisions, they don't get to insert NSA backdoors on behalf of their employers without the rest of the project being aware. The idea that the SC members have a special ability to sneak such a change in, any more than any contributor, is just stupid. But I don't think he's seriously worried about that, he's just a Concern Troll raising nonsense concerns to derail any useful discussion from happening. The sooner he moves on to a new compiler he trusts, the better for everybody involved in GCC. Him too really, it's important to have trust in your toolchain...
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher Dimech wrote: 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. On 2021-04-10 07:49, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote: There is a big difference between suppression or censorship, and wanting people in leadership positions to be representative of the values of the group they lead. RMS can have all the opinions he wants, and act has he will (until he ends up arrested for it), but if he is to remain a representative for others (FSF, GNU and/or GCC), then he has a duty to act appropriately according to the values those organisations think are important. If you look at the history of computing you will find that it was mostly crooks and people of very mixed kind of qualities. Not al all saints. Many of them quite unscrupolous and not very clever. And still they managed to do great things. So it tells a kid: They could do that, why can't you? That was certainly what turned me on. Freedom 0 also says "The freedom to run a program as you wish, for any purpose". Should we get our ideas from politicians and bureaucrats; or from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernest Hemingway, Aldous Huxley, Marie-Henri Beyle, and Emily Jane Brontë? From the latter of course! So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing anything of value to the discussion of GCC governance then?
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:37 AM > From: "David Brown" > To: "John Darrington" > Cc: "Christopher Dimech" , "David Malcolm" > , g...@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > > > On 09/04/2021 20:36, 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 allegory so > > this comment should be directed in his direction. > > Fair enough. > > > > > 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. > > > > I did not take the comment as an insult - I merely presumed that when > Christopher says someone is acting like the Russian or Chinese > government, he does not mean it in a good way. (His later posts make > that entirely clear.) I simply don't want to see this turn into a > political discussion. It was meant to enlighten you. Although it has not yet done so, the basic philosophy of removing people from the community, was the same philosophy used in Russia and China. > I agree with you entirely that it is not helpful to perceive insults, > prejudice or bigotry - in general, it is important to keep the > discussion polite and try to remain focused. That is what I wanted to > do by asking Christopher to avoid politics. Politics is also my business. Have heard many discuss "Representations of values of a group (e.g. of Free Software)", "Marginalisation and removal of people from all positions in society to undermine the likelihood or making an impact, rather than being merely spectators but not participants in action".
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 15:38 John Darrington, wrote: > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc wrote: > > I would > very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also > openly > exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not* > associated with > the GCC project. It does not matter to me what kind of control that > person > exerts on the project, if any. What matters to me is association, > even if > indirect one (other than historical). > > > I suppose I feel the same. I would also prefer it if all people involved > with GCC (and all my other interests) did not do or say things which made > me > uncomfortable. I don't however feel that I have the right to call for > anyone > to be excluded simply because I'm uncomfortable with that person's words or > deeds (ie. "consider them abhorent"). That would be an utterly dystopian, > world. > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
Re: [GSoC-2021] Interested in project `Extend the static analysis pass`
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 8:19 AM David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 01:59 +0530, Saloni Garg wrote:
> > Hi, apologies for the delayed reply. I was having some college
> > commitments.
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:22 PM David Malcolm
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 21:41 +0530, Saloni Garg wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 6:42 PM David Malcolm <
> > > > dmalc...@redhat.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 16:06 +0530, Saloni Garg wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 8:03 PM David Malcolm <
> > > > > > dmalc...@redhat.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > >
>
> [...snip...]
>
> > > > > Please do work on the formal proposal - without it we can't
> > > > > accept
> > > > > you
> > > > > as a GSoC student. The window for submitting proposals opened
> > > > > yesterday, and I believe it closes in a couple of weeks, and
> > > > > you
> > > > > need
> > > > > to do that, so any experimentation you do now should really
> > > > > just be
> > > > > in
> > > > > support of writing a good proposal. It would be a shame to not
> > > > > have a
> > > > > good prospective candidate because they didn't allow enough
> > > > > time to
> > > > > do
> > > > > the proper GSoC paperwork before the deadline.
> > > > >
> > > > Thanks for understanding. Here is an initial draft (
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1inkkU5B55s_FOWRzUuf38s7XEet65kc0dW3yFn0yh1M/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > )
> > > > of my GSoC proposal. I am yet to fill in the missing blocks.
> > > > Please, let me know if you have any comments on the document
> > > > itself.
> > >
> > > Caveat: I'm not familiar with the expected format of such
> > > documents.
> > >
> > > Looks like a good first draft.
> >
> > I don't think there is any such expected format(I checked some
> > previous
> > years accepted proposals). I believe if we clearly write the expected
> > goal
> > and the tentative approach to reach it, that would be okay for the
> > proposal.
>
> Looking at:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SummerOfCode#Application
> we don't have a specific format to be followed.
>
> That said, I saw this
> https://google.github.io/gsocguides/student/writing-a-proposal
> which seems to have useful advice to prospective GSoC students. In
> particular, the "Elements of a Quality Proposal" lists various things
> that in your current draft are missing, and which would strengthen your
> proposal. So I'd recommend that you (and other prospective GSoC
> candidates) have a look at that.
>
Added some new sections. Tried to explain them as well. There are some
things I am not clear about, so explicitly mentioned them and will add the
relevant explanations and present them in the later reports. Please let me
know if this sounds good to you and provide feedback as well.
>
> [...snip...]
>
> > > - in Example 2, maybe spell out why it's a leak - when does the
> > > allocated buffer stop being referenceable?
> > >
> > Explained. Please let me know if you feel it has any loose ends.
>
> I think the leak is actually at line 8, when the "catch" clause ends.
> Isn't the buffer passed into the exception-state of the thread, and
> becomes live during the "catch" clause, but stops being live at the end
> of the catch clause?
>
Yes, I understood your point and have added the same in the document as
well. The memory becomes unreferenced after the catch block ends so that is
basically the point where this leak started.
>
> >
> > > - you have a simple example of a false negative; is it possible to
> > > give
> > > a simple example of a false positive? (I think "new" is meant to
> > > raise
> > > an exception if it fails, so a diagnostics about a NULL-deref on
> > > unchecked new might be a false positive. I'm not sure)
> > >
> > I tried the following example:
> >
> > #include
> > #include
> > using namespace std;
> > int *p;
> > int* alloc() {
> >return new int;
> > }
> > void free() {
> >delete p;
> > }
>
> FWIW please don't create a top-level function called "free" that isn't
> the C stdlib's free, it's confusing!
>
Sorry, my bad renamed it to `myfree`.
>
> > int main()
> > {
> >try {
> > p = alloc();
> > free();
> >} catch(...) {
> >}
> >return 0;
> > }
> > Please, have a look here (https://godbolt.org/z/8WvoaP67n). I believe
> > it is
> > a false positive, I am not sure, please confirm.
>
> It looks like one to me. I had a look at -fdump-analyzer-exploded-
> graph and the false positive seems to be associated with the edge with
> the EH flag (to the catch handler).
>
I have understood the exploded graph but not able to understand the `EH
flag` point you are making, so I will get back to you on this.
>
> [...snip...]
>
> >
> > > - "sample example programs": for "sample" did you mean to write
> > > "simple" here?
> > >
> > By sample examples, I meant the test cases that shall be used to
> > prove the
> > correctness of the patches during the course.
>
> Isn't "sample examples" a tau
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 3:17 AM > From: "Thomas Rodgers" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: "David Brown" , g...@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > >> 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. > > On 2021-04-10 07:49, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote: > > >> There is a big difference between suppression or censorship, and > >> wanting > >> people in leadership positions to be representative of the values of > >> the > >> group they lead. RMS can have all the opinions he wants, and act has > >> he > >> will (until he ends up arrested for it), but if he is to remain a > >> representative for others (FSF, GNU and/or GCC), then he has a duty to > >> act appropriately according to the values those organisations think > >> are > >> important. > > If you look at the history of computing you will find that it was > > mostly > > crooks and people of very mixed kind of qualities. Not al all saints. > > Many of them quite unscrupolous and not very clever. And still they > > managed > > to do great things. > > > > So it tells a kid: They could do that, why can't you? That was > > certainly what turned me on. Freedom 0 also says "The freedom to run > > a program as you wish, for any purpose". > > > > Should we get our ideas from politicians and bureaucrats; or from > > Aleksandr > > Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernest > > Hemingway, > > Aldous Huxley, Marie-Henri Beyle, and Emily Jane Brontë? From the > > latter > > of course! > > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing anything > of value > to the discussion of GCC governance then? There are many instances when one has to work with people, even though one does not personally like them. I have worked with others in the Free Software Community that have placed themselves on the opposite side of the debate. And have no intention of stopping them working. I also worked with others, including MEPs in Brussels, etc. There's no way out of it. Eventually, one has to get out of bed and face the world. Irrespective of the attitudes that we take on what we like, and on what we don't like. I like this person, I don't like this person. Now with this person, I will do things willingly. With this other person, I will do things unwillingly. But the reality is that everybody is oscillating between a good person and a bad person. It is important to understand this. If you create a very pleasant wonderful atmosphere, everybody behaves wonderfully. If you create an unpleasant atmosphere, a whole lot of people act nasty. That's how it is. The moment we think we are good, we are entitled to destroy the bad, isn't it? Regards Christopher
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Sat, 2021-04-10 at 08:17 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > > > On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your > > > missives > > > on > > > this topic, hoping for exactly that very thing to occur. [...] > On 2021-04-10 07:49, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote: > > > > > > > Should we get our ideas from politicians and bureaucrats; or from > > Aleksandr > > Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernest > > Hemingway, > > Aldous Huxley, Marie-Henri Beyle, and Emily Jane Brontë? From the > > latter > > of course! > > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing > anything > of value > to the discussion of GCC governance then? Thomas, please don't feed the troll. Hope this is constructive Dave
Re: GCC association with the FSF
It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it? :-D Indeed you ARE inclusive to those who share your interests, like Nathan. Just not to everybody else. But it's quite obvious, after you removed RMS's oversight on SC's decisions. And now I'm depicted as a "concern troll", because I don't share your opinion. You can't argue in merit, so you insult me personally. I'm fine with this: it says a lot about you and nothing about me. In fact, the mail boxes of the Steering Committee's members are stored on their corporate servers. And among such corporations are IBM and Google. And you pretend it's all fine. Yet I only asked to fix the Steering Committee AFTER the only credible no-profit protecting free software (FSF) was removed. But I'm a "concern troll", right? I think everybody can see who is who. ;-) Giacomo On April 10, 2021 3:04:22 PM UTC, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > On 2021-04-10 05:35, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > > > On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 12:57 Pankaj Jangid, > > wrote: > > > > Jonathan Wakely via Gcc writes: > > > > You are clueless about what the SC actually does, or the control > they > > have over GCC. > > I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC > > does. > > https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html > > They make decisions, they don't get to insert NSA backdoors on behalf > of > their employers without the rest of the project being aware. The idea > that > the SC members have a special ability to sneak such a change in, any > more > than any contributor, is just stupid. But I don't think he's seriously > worried about that, he's just a Concern Troll raising nonsense > concerns > to > derail any useful discussion from happening. The sooner he moves on to > a > new compiler he trusts, the better for everybody involved in GCC. > > Him too really, it's important to have trust in your toolchain...
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 3:59 AM > From: "David Malcolm" > To: "Thomas Rodgers" , "Christopher Dimech" > > Cc: g...@gnu.org, "David Brown" > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > On Sat, 2021-04-10 at 08:17 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > > On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > > > > > On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your > > > > missives > > > > on > > > > this topic, hoping for exactly that very thing to occur. > > [...] > > > On 2021-04-10 07:49, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Should we get our ideas from politicians and bureaucrats; or from > > > Aleksandr > > > Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernest > > > Hemingway, > > > Aldous Huxley, Marie-Henri Beyle, and Emily Jane Brontë? >From the > > > latter > > > of course! > > > > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing > > anything > > of value > > to the discussion of GCC governance then? > > Thomas, please don't feed the troll. > Hope this is constructive Yes, it is better. Regards Christopher
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:01 AM > From: "Giacomo Tesio" > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Thomas Rodgers" , "Jonathan > Wakely" > Cc: "Pankaj Jangid" > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it? :-D > > Indeed you ARE inclusive to those who share your interests, like Nathan. > Just not to everybody else. > > > But it's quite obvious, after you removed RMS's oversight on SC's decisions. > > And now I'm depicted as a "concern troll", because I don't share your opinion. > You can't argue in merit, so you insult me personally. > I'm fine with this: it says a lot about you and nothing about me. Welcome to the club, friend. ;) > In fact, the mail boxes of the Steering Committee's members are stored on > their corporate servers. > And among such corporations are IBM and Google. > > And you pretend it's all fine. > > > Yet I only asked to fix the Steering Committee AFTER the only credible > no-profit protecting free software (FSF) was removed. > > But I'm a "concern troll", right? > > > I think everybody can see who is who. ;-) It's easier than fixing the world economies for sure. > Giacomo > > > On April 10, 2021 3:04:22 PM UTC, Thomas Rodgers > wrote: > > On 2021-04-10 05:35, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 12:57 Pankaj Jangid, > > > wrote: > > > > > > Jonathan Wakely via Gcc writes: > > > > > > You are clueless about what the SC actually does, or the control > > they > > > have over GCC. > > > I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC > > > does. > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html > > > > They make decisions, they don't get to insert NSA backdoors on behalf > > of > > their employers without the rest of the project being aware. The idea > > that > > the SC members have a special ability to sneak such a change in, any > > more > > than any contributor, is just stupid. But I don't think he's seriously > > worried about that, he's just a Concern Troll raising nonsense > > concerns > > to > > derail any useful discussion from happening. The sooner he moves on to > > a > > new compiler he trusts, the better for everybody involved in GCC. > > > > Him too really, it's important to have trust in your toolchain... >
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On 2021-04-10 08:54, Christopher Dimech wrote: <...snip...> If you create a very pleasant wonderful atmosphere, everybody behaves wonderfully. If you create an unpleasant atmosphere, a whole lot of people act nasty. That's how it is. This is crux of it really. For many RMS has very much created that unpleasant atmosphere full of people acting nasty, and a few decades on, some people, notably those that do significant amounts of work on a project he may have been part of two decades ago, no longer want any kind of association between their work product and the toxic environment of 'people acting nasty' that he (for a multitude of reasons) engenders. We are done here.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On 10/04/2021 14:58, Pankaj Jangid wrote: > > I have never said that the project will survive without maintainers. I > just asked you to count me as well. Success of the project also depends > on how widely it is used. And you need to look at the reasons why people > are using it. > I think it is useful to consider why people use gcc - I agree that without users, there would be no project. So why /do/ people use it? I suspect that one of the biggest reason is "it's the only compiler that will do the job". For a lot of important software, such as Linux kernel, it is gcc or nothing. Another big reason is that gcc comes with their system, which is commonly the case for Linux systems. In the embedded development world (where I work), the normal practice for getting a toolchain for a microcontroller is to download an IDE and toolchain from the manufacturer - and these days it is more often gcc than not. You use gcc because that is the standard, not from choice. For those that actively /choose/ gcc, why do they do so? I'd guess being convenient, well-known and free (as in beer) come a lot higher than the details of the licence, or the difference between "free software" and "open source software". (For me, a major reason is that the same compiler supports a wide range of targets. That, and that gcc is technically a better compiler for my needs than any alternatives.) I suspect that only a very small (but not zero) proportion of gcc users care that the project is part of GNU and under the FSF. I suspect that a larger proportion would start caring if they felt (rightly or wrongly) that at the top of the hierarchy was a misogynist who patronises and sexually harasses women. (As always, this is just my opinion.)
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:14 AM > From: "Thomas Rodgers" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: "David Brown" , g...@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > On 2021-04-10 08:54, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > <...snip...> > > > If you create a very pleasant wonderful atmosphere, everybody behaves > > wonderfully. If you create an unpleasant atmosphere, a whole lot of > > people act nasty. That's how it is. > > This is crux of it really. For many RMS has very much created that > unpleasant atmosphere full > of people acting nasty, and a few decades on, some people, notably those > that do significant > amounts of work on a project he may have been part of two decades ago, > no longer want any kind > of association between their work product and the toxic environment of > 'people acting nasty' > that he (for a multitude of reasons) engenders. > > We are done here. Would that not have been the job of the organisers? Have organised meetings with Richard, including with governmental bodies and things progressed decently. Should people have been wronged, in small ways or big ones, many countries provide recourse for that. How it is that many want the Gnu Tag he build. One can simply continue the work and have a website or some other way for distribution. I frequently do that, make software without the Gnu Association. Gnu could be better with me, but I left the decision for RMS on whether he wanted new types of projects that were not port of Gnu at the time.
Re: [GSoC-2021] Interested in project `Extend the static analysis pass`
On Sat, 2021-04-10 at 21:18 +0530, Saloni Garg wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 8:19 AM David Malcolm
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 01:59 +0530, Saloni Garg wrote:
[...]
> > Looking at:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SummerOfCode#Application
> > we don't have a specific format to be followed.
> >
> > That said, I saw this
> > https://google.github.io/gsocguides/student/writing-a-proposal
> > which seems to have useful advice to prospective GSoC students. In
> > particular, the "Elements of a Quality Proposal" lists various
> > things
> > that in your current draft are missing, and which would strengthen
> > your
> > proposal. So I'd recommend that you (and other prospective GSoC
> > candidates) have a look at that.
> >
> Added some new sections. Tried to explain them as well. There are
> some
> things I am not clear about, so explicitly mentioned them and will
> add the
> relevant explanations and present them in the later reports. Please
> let me
> know if this sounds good to you and provide feedback as well.
The updated version looks a lot stronger.
That said, you haven't given details of your programming expertise - in
particular this project will require proficiency with C++, so a good
application would give evidence to the reader that you're already up-
to-speed on writing and debugging C++ (see the "Biographical
Information" section in the guide I linked to above for more info).
[...snip...]
> > FWIW please don't create a top-level function called "free" that
> > isn't
> > the C stdlib's free, it's confusing!
> >
> Sorry, my bad renamed it to `myfree`.
Thanks!
> >
> > > int main()
> > > {
> > > try {
> > > p = alloc();
> > > free();
> > > } catch(...) {
> > > }
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > Please, have a look here (https://godbolt.org/z/8WvoaP67n). I
> > > believe
> > > it is
> > > a false positive, I am not sure, please confirm.
> >
> > It looks like one to me. I had a look at -fdump-analyzer-exploded-
> > graph and the false positive seems to be associated with the edge
> > with
> > the EH flag (to the catch handler).
> >
> I have understood the exploded graph but not able to understand the
> `EH
> flag` point you are making, so I will get back to you on this.
Edges in control flow graphs can have flags; see the various
DEF_EDGE_FLAG in gcc/cfg-flags.def in the source tree, and in
particular the "EH" flag.
These flags are visible in the analyzer's supergraph - they should
appear in the .dot dump files from the analyzer - so sometimes they're
difficult to see, depending on how GraphViz lays things out. (FWIW I
use:
https://github.com/jrfonseca/xdot.py
to view the .dot files; it's fast and convenient)
[...snip...]
>
> > >
> >
> > Currently the analyzer has a "brute force" approach to
> > interprocedural
> > analysis, and attempts to simulate the calls and returns in a
> > fairly
> > direct way. It's crude (and has exponential growth), but is
> > reasonably
> > simple conceptually (or at least I think so). The analyzer
> > implements
> > setjmp/longjmp in a similar way, and exception-handling could be
> > based
> > on that code.
> >
> Going through that already and your comments at the start of every
> data
> structure defined are really helpful.
Thanks!
>
[...snip...]
Dave
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:34 AM > From: "David Brown" > To: "Pankaj Jangid" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > On 10/04/2021 14:58, Pankaj Jangid wrote: > > > > I have never said that the project will survive without maintainers. I > > just asked you to count me as well. Success of the project also depends > > on how widely it is used. And you need to look at the reasons why people > > are using it. > > > > I think it is useful to consider why people use gcc - I agree that > without users, there would be no project. > > So why /do/ people use it? I suspect that one of the biggest reason is > "it's the only compiler that will do the job". For a lot of important > software, such as Linux kernel, it is gcc or nothing. Another big > reason is that gcc comes with their system, which is commonly the case > for Linux systems. In the embedded development world (where I work), > the normal practice for getting a toolchain for a microcontroller is to > download an IDE and toolchain from the manufacturer - and these days it > is more often gcc than not. You use gcc because that is the standard, > not from choice. > > For those that actively /choose/ gcc, why do they do so? I'd guess > being convenient, well-known and free (as in beer) come a lot higher > than the details of the licence, or the difference between "free > software" and "open source software". (For me, a major reason is that > the same compiler supports a wide range of targets. That, and that gcc > is technically a better compiler for my needs than any alternatives.) > > I suspect that only a very small (but not zero) proportion of gcc users > care that the project is part of GNU and under the FSF. I suspect that > a larger proportion would start caring if they felt (rightly or wrongly) > that at the top of the hierarchy was a misogynist who patronises and > sexually harasses women. > > (As always, this is just my opinion.) I use it because I can do the numerical computations for a given task. Because it is free software I can work unhindered. RMS could have been anybody with any type of personality, I would still use it. It is not about any qualms about the behaviour of the people who worked on it. I could also continue the work even after I change employment status or stop working with particular groups. But I have to say that there was tremendous progress during the first eight years of the Gnu Project, and cost practically nothing. But the advance since then has not been very great. Another problem is that there are not many people working on applications. In mathematics, for instance, I did not find people currently in the hacking community who could contribute much. Additionally, the work is too advanced even for mathematicians working at undergraduate level. Those working at graduate level customarily restrict the code, because principal investigators customarily compete with their peers by trampling on others and acting nasty. In a lot of ways, the free software community works better. Provided, people are able to keep their interactions within reason, rather than putting too many demands on each other. The original hacking spirit has been eroding through the years, particularly post-2008. People should start organising things with RMS, if they want to see how good then really are in making things better. Rather than limiting themselves with hacking, people should try to organise things together with governmental bodies in various countries. Organisers will quickly figure out the real difficulties that come up, and learn from their mistakes to do a better job. Remembering my first year, I thought I did my homework and done a great job. In the end I found out that I blew it. I was frustrated, completely frustrated. I had to correct my mistakes. The next few years, I started to introspect and emphasise in order to correct my mistakes. I am still making mistakes and it is difficult. Regards
Re: Warnings in gcc build
At 11:39 AM 4/10/2021 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 at 11:30, Sidney Marshall wrote: > > When compiling the last few releases of GCC I get many warnings in > format strings of the form: > > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc: In member function > 'void ana::svalue_id::dump_node_name_to_pp(pretty_printer*) const': > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:205:19: warning: > unquoted identifier or keyword 'svalue_' in format [-Wformat-diag] >205 | pp_printf (pp, "svalue_%i", m_idx); >| ^~~ > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc: In member function > 'void ana::region_id::dump_node_name_to_pp(pretty_printer*) const': > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:235:19: warning: > unquoted identifier or keyword 'region_' in format [-Wformat-diag] >235 | pp_printf (pp, "region_%i", m_idx); >| ^~~ > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc: In member function > 'virtual void ana::svalue::dump_dot_to_pp(const ana::region_model&, > ana::svalue_id, pretty_printer*) const': > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:377:26: warning: > spurious trailing punctuation sequence '="' in format [-Wformat-diag] >377 | pp_printf (pp, " [label=\""); >| ^~~ > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:377:20: warning: > unbalanced punctuation character '[' in format [-Wformat-diag] >377 | pp_printf (pp, " [label=\""); >|^ > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc: In member function > 'virtual void ana::region::dump_dot_to_pp(const ana::region_model&, > ana::region_id, pretty_printer*) const': > ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc:1382:72: warning: > spurious trailing punctuation sequence '="' in format [-Wformat-diag] > 1382 | printf (pp, " > [shape=none,margin=0,style=filled,fillcolor=%s,label=\"", >| ^~~ > > These warnings seem spurious to me. > > Are these warnings truly spurious or is there som part of the > standard I don't understand? These are nothing to do with the standard. These are internal warnings produced by GCC checking its own diagnostic strings (i.e. the strings used for warnings and errors that GCC prints when compiling your code). There are checks to ensure we don't print errors with mismatched quotes, or unclosed parentheses. Sometimes the checks give false positives, e.g. because a diagnostic is built up in pieces, and the checks only look at a single piece at a time, rather than the finished result. You can ignore them. Thank you - the warnings are clear now. --Sidney Marshall
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Apr 10, 2021, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc wrote: > It is called "actions have consequences". FTR, what consequences do you believe would be adequate for such actions as spreading difamatory rumors about an innocent person? I ask because some of the people campaigning against RMS have already disclaimed the false accusations in the hateful letter, but others keep on resorting to them as if they were true and relevant. Ironically, those who may have legitimate claims about difficulties in dealing with RMS and who, for their position in the subproject, might have to interact with him are not the ones engaging in disrespectful conversations with users and potential contributors, offering them a far worse amount of toxicity than anything that could be honestly attributed to RMS, rather than setting a good example of kind and respectful dissent for those who've just started participating in our community. We've already seen that Nathan's frustration with RMS for supposedly holding up a project he wanted to contribute was misdirected. People from neighboring projects, if willing to look honestly into the matters, would find out that a lot of frustration misdirected at RMS is also motivated by faulty assumptions. That, plus the tiresome repeating of unfounded allegations and hearsay mistaken as evidence, by a few loud individuals, makes for strong cases of intolerance, witch hunting and scapegoating. Such unkindness and intolerance do not belong in communities that wish to be welcoming to contributors and users alike. Responsibility that might normally be assigned to positions of authority, and that AFAICT is attributed to Chief GNUisance, is IMHO a mistake. Chief GNUisance is not a position of authority over volunteers. That would be (-: gnonsense :-) , a deep misunderstanding of the dynamics at play. It's rather a position of purpose setting, strategic steering and policy driving for the project as a whole. It's not one of policing contributor's thoughts or behaviors. That requires authority over individuals, which Chief GNUisance doesn't have. If we find undesirable behaviors within our subprojects, we shouldn't expect Chief GNUisance to send GNU Kindness Police to address it. There's no such authority, no such power. We are, rather, free and expected to behave like kind grownups, and respectfully resolve issues among ourselves, according to policies set for the project as a whole and for the subproject, if any. Sort of like some are trying to do to RMS, just with kindness and respect, and directing it at someone who's actually engaging in misbehavior among us. The rationale presented to justify a separation from any organization in which RMS is involved, on the grounds that a lot of people would find such a relationship intolerable, is questionable in the face of the massive support for RMS's return to the FSF board, vs the hate letter than is such a failure that they now even refuse to apply withdrawals from undersigners who learned better. If public image and community alignment were the issue, it would seem like separation from all things RMS would bring onto us far more community repproach and distrust than keeping things as they are. Conversely, such a hate campaign, the false allegations, and the very vocal and explicit intolerance to symptoms of the neurodiverse condition of the target do the very opposite of signaling a welcome and safe space, presented as rationale for these behaviors. Right now I couldn't honestly recommend GCC as a welcoming or even as a respectful community, and none of the unwelcoming and intolerant behavior can be attributed to the favorite scapegoat. Since some holders of opposing positions haven't been treating each other kindly or respectfully, and it doesn't seem to me that holders of any positions have made any progress in convincing holders of different positions recently, may I suggest that we drop this hateful discussion, or that participants at least bring the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines back to mind? Thanks, -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On 2021-04-10 09:01, Giacomo Tesio wrote: It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it? :-D Indeed you ARE inclusive to those who share your interests, like Nathan. Just not to everybody else. I share with Nathan an interest in making GCC the best C++ compiler and standard library, and like Nathan, I work to help make that the case. It is certainly true I don't have a lot of concern for the concerns of those, whose only apparent contribution to the discussion is 'oooh evil bad bigcorp's subverting mah compiler. I will go away now'. Yet I only asked to fix the Steering Committee AFTER the only credible no-profit protecting free software (FSF) was removed. But I'm a "concern troll", right? I think everybody can see who is who. ;-) Indeed.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing > anything of value to the discussion of GCC governance then? I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> But it's quite obvious, after you removed RMS's oversight on SC's decisions. The SC is the "GNU maintainer" for GCC. The GNU project has oversight on the maintainers of every GNU project, including GCC. The change to the web page didn't affect that: RMS still has oversight on the SC's decisions to some extent, just like he does over all GNU projects.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:52 AM > From: "Thomas Rodgers" > To: "Giacomo Tesio" > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Pankaj Jangid" > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > On 2021-04-10 09:01, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > > > It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it? :-D > > > > Indeed you ARE inclusive to those who share your interests, like > > Nathan. > > Just not to everybody else. > > > > I share with Nathan an interest in making GCC the best C++ compiler and > standard library, and like Nathan, I work to help make that the case. It > is certainly true I don't have a lot of concern for the concerns of > those, whose only apparent contribution to the discussion is 'oooh evil > bad bigcorp's subverting mah compiler. I will go away now'. Companies have serious problems right now. The internet used to run as a US Benign Dictatorship, under the assumption that the US was generally behaving in the world's best interest. That trust has been lost. If you are someone in some country somewhere, and you hear that the NSA is getting a copy of everything. And IBM and Google have a Press Release saying that they have fixed a problem. Do you believe it? I sure don't. And many others don't, and for good reasons. I also think that will be a bunch of other countries that will do way worse than what the United States has done. If we are against national means of intelligence, all bets are off. This is compounded by the fact that attack in much easier than defense. I don't think that's what we are trying to defend against. We are trying to defend against bulk collection. But I tend to be optimistic, than humanity as a species tend to solve these problems. It might take one or a few generations. We might have some terrible world wars while we're solving it. But till now we have managed to have more freedom, more rights, more liberty, century by century. People have to understand that companies and governments are not made of magic, that they are not breaking systems to anywhere near the extent that we thought they were. This is the most important conclusion that can be taken from Snowden's documents. The reality in that there are many things we can do to make ourselves much more secure. I might have some reservations about Nathan and others regarding the RMS debate, but not that many of them are likely to be consciously injecting malicious code or introducing vulnerabilities. If business leaders change the way they look at life, instead of making a whole lot of money and then contributing to some cause, they can structure their business in such a way that every customer is in some way a partner with them. However if companies and governments try to conquer people, they will have to keep sitting on top of their head, and they will do everything to make the life of business leaders miserable. Traditionally, military leaders were the most powerful people. In the last hundred years, political leaders were the most powerful. But now and in the future, economic leaders will be the most powerful. We have to start working with economic leaders to make a difference in the way they make decisions, and in the way they conduct their businesses. This is being done, but is being done very discreetly because it is something that today cannot be handled publicly. > > Yet I only asked to fix the Steering Committee AFTER the only credible > > no-profit protecting free software (FSF) was removed. > > > > But I'm a "concern troll", right? > > > > I think everybody can see who is who. ;-) > > > > Indeed. >
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 21:10 Alexandre Oliva via Gcc, wrote: > On Apr 10, 2021, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc wrote: > > > It is called "actions have consequences". > > FTR, what consequences do you believe would be adequate for such actions > as spreading difamatory rumors about an innocent person? > > I ask because some of the people campaigning against RMS have already > disclaimed the false accusations in the hateful letter, but others keep > on resorting to them as if they were true and relevant. > The subject of this thread was *supposed* to have changed to be about GNU and the FSF and whether it benefits GCC to be linked to them, not about RMS. The fact that some people insist on seeing that question as another attack on RMS is not helpful, and is part of the problem with being linked to the cult of GNU. We can't question whether FSF benefits GCC without being reminded that RMS started the project, and so he must be involved. I still can't find where in the four freedoms it says anything about venerating the project leader.
Re: GCC association with the FSF
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 8:10 AM > From: "Richard Kenner" > To: rodg...@appliantology.com > Cc: david.br...@hesbynett.no, dim...@gmx.com, g...@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing > > anything of value to the discussion of GCC governance then? > > I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a > much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists. If the community makes it too hard by demanding too much (which seems to me that it is bending towards the merely bureaucratic), people would be discouraged to serve on it. Years ago I proposed Committee Refreshments and Committee Rotations for School Governing Bodies in the United Kingdom, which was supported by the Department for Education and Skills of the UK Government that existed until 2007. A strategy that can potentially resolve a lot of problems within the free software community. I also suggest the concept of logrolling with laid down safeguards first applied to legislation by US Congressman David Crockett in about 1835. This does have benefits in direct democracies. Regards Christopher
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote: > I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a > much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists. There are a number of people arguing here who have contributed little to nothing to GCC, whose names even did not trigger memories - unlike David M. or Jonathan, for example, or Nathan or Alexandre. We generally welcome contributions - technical and otherwise. When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved and contributing. (And, for the record, I have no doubt that all of the other contributors who have spoken up care a lot about free software and the future of GCC in that context. That does not necessarily require the FSF, though.) Gerald
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > GCC is clearly an US-only project. This is simply incorrect. > A US-corporate one. Totally SFW (in the US). As is this. > This is not intended as an insult. > It's just a fact. Ex falso quodlibet. Gerald
gcc-10-20210410 is now available
Snapshot gcc-10-20210410 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20210410/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch releases/gcc-10 revision e8a35b479038ada80c1ae1b6a3fa1251c00f75a8 You'll find: gcc-10-20210410.tar.xz Complete GCC SHA256=1bc361406b307ac8e5a7904a89b2c844083afd8ba6f616449f8b910590585d58 SHA1=06a011ef419e13d4fdd0388191372e59190aa300 Diffs from 10-20210403 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-10 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 Sat, 10 Apr 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > In fact, the mail boxes of the Steering Committee's members are > stored on their corporate servers. You keep making statements which are simply wrong. None of my GCC-related e-mails touch the servers of my employer, nor servers under the control of my employer, nor servers running one of my employer's products. Membership in the steering committee is personal, not related to the respective employeers, and transcends employment. Oh, and FWIW: my employer legally is not even allowed to access my work mailbox. > Yet I only asked to fix the Steering Committee AFTER the only > credible no-profit protecting free software (FSF) was removed. Please stop spreading FUD and insulting steering committee members. Gerald
Re: GCC association with the FSF
Please move these off-topic discussions somewhere else, people are already annoyed and angry as it is -- on both sides!
