Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th Oct 2007 21:06 UTC, submitted by Valour
OpenBSD "A few weeks ago, the OpenBSD Project announced that the Portable C Compiler had been added to the OpenBSD source tree. There has already been some explanation of why the traditional GNU Compiler Collection is troublesome and why a new compiler is needed, but there are still some details left uncovered. In this interview, Theo de Raadt and Otto Moerbeek of the OpenBSD Project offer more information about PCC and GCC and where they are headed within the project."
Order by: Score:
...
by Hiev on Mon 15th Oct 2007 21:33 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

One step forward to release the free world from the GNU monopoly.

Reply Score: 10

RE: ...
by snozzberry on Mon 15th Oct 2007 21:52 UTC in reply to "..."
snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

Remember, GNU is a convicted monopolist.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: ...
by sbergman27 on Tue 16th Oct 2007 02:23 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

Remember, GNU is a convicted monopolist.

"""

I vote for a break up. Scatter their programmers all over the world so that they can't collaborate.

(Don't you just hate it when people end their posts with "Wait!"? Irritates the hell out of me.) ;-)

Reply Score: 7

RE: ...
by superman on Mon 15th Oct 2007 21:59 UTC in reply to "..."
superman Member since:
2006-08-01

> GNU monopoly.

What about ssh monopoly ?

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: ...
by Janizary on Mon 15th Oct 2007 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

The near monopoly of OpenSSH is not uncontested by open source alternatives, they are all just significantly inferior to the OpenBSD ssh suite.

Reply Score: 12

RE[3]: ...
by MacTO on Tue 16th Oct 2007 01:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

The near monopoly of OpenSSH is not uncontested by open source alternatives, they are all just significantly inferior to the OpenBSD ssh suite.


Well, people tend to use GCC because the competition (in the open source world) is inferior. By GCC being superior, I mean in a Microsoft sort of way: all of the extensions to the languages and dependence upon the GNU tool chain to build software tends to make it difficult to drop in a third party product.

Oddly enough, one of the big reasons why I use Windows is PuTTY. Even when I do use OpenSSH, I learned how to use most of the features on PuTTY. PuTTY has better documentation, a simpler interface (i.e. no need to pull out vi to edit config files or deal with long command line parameters), and seems to behave with non OpenSSH servers better.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: ...
by phoenix on Tue 16th Oct 2007 02:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Oddly enough, one of the big reasons why I use Windows is PuTTY. Even when I do use OpenSSH, I learned how to use most of the features on PuTTY. PuTTY has better documentation, a simpler interface (i.e. no need to pull out vi to edit config files or deal with long command line parameters), and seems to behave with non OpenSSH servers better.


PuTTY is available for Linux, *BSD, Windows, and more. Why would you use Windows just for a terminal app when that same app runs on more than just Windows?

Problem with PuTTY is that it uses the Windows registry to store just about everything. Makes it very inconvenient to use on a USB stick. Newer versions tend to use the registry less, but you still leave tracks on every computer you connect from. Not exactly a security conscious development method.

Reply Score: 7

RE[5]: ...
by Spellcheck on Tue 16th Oct 2007 06:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Spellcheck Member since:
2007-01-20

Problem with PuTTY is that it uses the Windows registry to store just about everything.


While it still won't save config to a flat file, which seems like it would be really easy with an abstracted interface to its config routines, its docs do have some workarounds, of sorts.

Oh, and there's this, which is even up to date: http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/putty_portable

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: ... - PuTTY on USB works great
by jabbotts on Tue 16th Oct 2007 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/putty_portable

It's been a staple on my win32 USB drive toolkit for years now. No local registry changes and it works great when I don't have a true bash/ssh handy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: ...
by Oliver on Tue 16th Oct 2007 16:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>one of the big reasons why I use Windows is PuTTY

Are you aware of the nonsense you're talking of? Are you also aware of the existence of putty in Linux/BSD?

>PuTTY has better documentation

A big, fat LOL.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by MacTO on Tue 16th Oct 2007 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

Are you aware of the nonsense you're talking of? Are you also aware of the existence of putty in Linux/BSD?


I am now aware of the latter. As for the former, I must admit to being a clueless noob. After all, I've only been using Unix based systems for a decade.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Oliver on Tue 16th Oct 2007 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

It's real free, just mention the author ( in civilized open source circles we call this show some respect) and fork it - so you can do whatever you want with it. Try this with the GPL.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by ghostX on Mon 15th Oct 2007 23:21 UTC in reply to "..."
ghostX Member since:
2007-09-13

Vast majority of GNU GCC contributors will prefere GPL licence not BSD for obvious reasons.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Janizary on Mon 15th Oct 2007 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

How do you know? When was the last time the vast majority of GCC code contributors were polled about this? Not everything the GNU has ever done involves the dreaded GPL.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: ...
by kargl on Tue 16th Oct 2007 02:32 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
kargl Member since:
2007-10-16

Vast majority of GNU GCC contributors will prefere GPL licence not BSD for obvious reasons.


I'm an active contributor to GCC, and I greatly prefer the 2-clause BSD license over the GPL.

The problem is that if you need/want to fix a bug in GCC, you then have to assign Copyright to the FSF and a submit to the GPL.

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: ...
by butters on Tue 16th Oct 2007 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

The problem is that if you need/want to fix a bug in GCC, you then have to assign Copyright to the FSF and a submit to the GPL.


Both of these measures are kludges to overcome the practical incompatibilities between open-source software and copyright law. The legal framework wasn't designed for works that may have thousands of copyright owners claiming partial ownership of various overlapping fragments. It wasn't designed for works where there is great value in small modifications. It wasn't designed for works that can be copied and redistributed extremely inexpensively. It wasn't designed for works that retain much of their value when obfuscated.

Neither the GPL nor copyright assignment are perfect solutions, but neither is the BSD. The GPL is a compromise of freedom vs. regulation to the extent that such regulation promotes freedom with a bias toward users. The BSD is an unregulated free market with no incentives or restrictions to innovation.

Think of proprietary software as fascism, the GPL as socialism, and the BSD as libertarianism. All of these political systems have their problems. Fascism doesn't end well. Libertarianism doesn't start well. Socialism doesn't work well. However, the GPL is really a mixed economy, a blend of socialism and capitalism, and most progressive economists agree that mixed economies are more prosperous and sustainable than any purebred economic system. They might not grow like fascism, empower like libertarianism, or nurture like socialism, but they provide a reasonable balance of these qualities.

You can call into question the center of this balance, but it is absurd to argue against the notion of balance. The BSD economy never really took off because corporations want incentives and users want protections. Perhaps the ideology is more important than the outcome, and I can respect that as long as this is understood as a social experiment rather than a practical software ecosystem.

The GPL ecosystem is what it is because it grows, empowers, and sustains. It's a practical framework, and as the proprietary ecosystem realizes its ultimate problem of sustainability, it will become the dominant framework for software development. With increased dominance will come increased growth (more incentive to contribute) and empowerment (more compatible code) with no loss of sustainability.

Hopefully our politics will soon benefit from the lessons learned in the software industry, rejecting ideology and embracing balance. Hopefully we will spend more time debating this balance and less time refusing to compromise. Balance is not a "Trojan Horse" of the opposing ideology. It's an essential equilibrium, and one that we must actively pursue--using rational argument, if we please.

Reply Score: 18

RE[4]: ...
by KenJackson on Tue 16th Oct 2007 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I thoroughly appreciate your insight and analysis.

The F/OSS software movements have kept me puzzled for years. All of these licenses and development models bear some similarity to socialism, which seems to be clearly inferior to capitalism when it comes to motivating production. And yet there is clearly excellence and vibrancy here that outshines proprietary software.

Hopefully our politics will soon benefit from the lessons learned in the software industry, rejecting ideology and embracing balance.

I wouldn't go that far. Software is a unique industry. The lessons learned in software might not apply well to vehicle manufacturing, health care or law making.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by jwwf on Tue 16th Oct 2007 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
jwwf Member since:
2006-01-19


The F/OSS software movements have kept me puzzled for years. All of these licenses and development models bear some similarity to socialism, which seems to be clearly inferior to capitalism when it comes to motivating production. And yet there is clearly excellence and vibrancy here that outshines proprietary software.


Right, although I am not so sure how much of this is innate and how much of it is due to the mainstream open source community being in some proportion composed of anti-capitalists. What I think is becoming more and more interesting is the question of what will become the main force in mainstream open source: no holds barred capitalists like IBM or the socialists. I don't think that any temporary peace to concentrate against common 'enemies' (ie, business competitors) can be lasting.

I wouldn't go that far. Software is a unique industry. The lessons learned in software might not apply well to vehicle manufacturing, health care or law making.

Right. We hear a lot about how software development is different and so traditional approaches tend to fail. I bet this cuts both ways. Plus, I have read dev mailing lists. I don't want those people in charge ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Oliver on Tue 16th Oct 2007 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

The vast majority of *sane* coders will prefer a proper compiler - so it's up to the future.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by sultanqasim on Tue 16th Oct 2007 01:28 UTC in reply to "..."
sultanqasim Member since:
2006-10-28

True. At first your comment may sound absurd but then it makes sense. What do all linux distros use? GCC. Most BSDs? GCC. What is used to compile Windows? GCC (Really! After examining leaked windows source code, it was found to me gcc makefiles and all).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Alex Forster on Tue 16th Oct 2007 03:45 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

"What is used to compile Windows? GCC (Really! After examining leaked windows source code, it was found to me gcc makefiles and all)."

Do you have any links to cite that? If it were true, it would be huge. I googled and couldn't find anything backing you up, though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by J.R. on Tue 16th Oct 2007 06:12 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
J.R. Member since:
2007-07-25

That is just not true. Its a rather bold assumption based on little evidence I would say. The truth is that makefiles are _NOT_ a GCC only thing. If this is your only evidence then you should do some more research because its a flat out lie.

Read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makefile

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: ...
by MacTO on Tue 16th Oct 2007 20:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

Let's pretend that gnu make does not exist, thus the incompatibilities that it presents should developers choose to use its extensions. I can live with that. After all, it is a separate project from GCC.

You still have to contend with the issue that the contents of a makefile are compiler, even platform, dependent. Where pcc uses different flags from gcc, the build process will break. If you use 'rm' as part of a rule, it won't work under Windows unless you install some sort of Unix compatible tools (like cygwin or gnuwin32).

And navigating through makefiles isn't always fun. I have never really devoted to time to figure out how autoconf scripts work (life is too short is my excuse), which pretty much determines how makefiles are generated. Even if a project restricted itself to makefiles, many will use recursive makefiles. Again, life is too short to read a truck load of details just to figure out how things work. Even if a project was encapsulated by one makefile (i.e. the limits of my experience), you are still relying upon the assumption that the developer defined all flags as variables -- thus easing the transition to another compiler.

In a way, the Achilles heel of the GNU toolchain is its flexibility. It really is quite difficult for anyone outside of a full time developer to understand. That goes for GCC, and that goes for make.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Soulbender on Tue 16th Oct 2007 06:46 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Really! After examining leaked windows source code, it was found to me gcc makefiles and all


And the Pope is protestant. The presence of "makefiles" does not mean they used gcc and there are no special "gcc makefiles".

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by dylansmrjones on Tue 16th Oct 2007 15:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

And the Pope is protestant.


Well, he does protest a lot ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by viton on Tue 16th Oct 2007 07:26 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

What is used to compile Windows? GCC
You're wrong. AFAIK it is Microsoft Quick C

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by KugelKurt on Tue 16th Oct 2007 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

IIRC the Windows source code was leaked though Mainsoft. Mainsoft has a (commercial) product that's simmilar to WINE, but Mainsoft licensed the actual Windows source code from Microsoft to do this. It's not unlikely that Mainsoft ported the requred parts of the Windows source to GCC.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by Almafeta on Tue 16th Oct 2007 13:54 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

What is used to compile Windows? GCC (Really! After examining leaked windows source code, it was found to me gcc makefiles and all).


Actually, that's not quite possible. GCC compiles to the ELF file format, while Windows' kernel uses the PE file format. If Microsoft did use GCC to compile Windows, the resulting binary wouldn't be compatible with their bootloader.

(On the other hand, it's possible to compile Linux as a PE in Visual Studio, and theoretically, even get it booting under GRUB. I've pondered compiling Linux as a PE just to compare compile quality of the two.)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by dylansmrjones on Tue 16th Oct 2007 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually GCC compiles to whatever format you want it to. So that argument is flawed. However, basing the claim of GCC-usage on the existence of make.files are also flawed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by Almafeta on Tue 16th Oct 2007 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Actually GCC compiles to whatever format you want it to. So that argument is flawed. However, basing the claim of GCC-usage on the existence of make.files are also flawed.


... I don't think GCC would compile to a proprietary Microsoft file format. ^^:

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: ...
by dylansmrjones on Tue 16th Oct 2007 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually GCC is perfectly capable of compiling to PE-format. SkyOS used PE-format in earlier versions - and used (and still does use) GCC as compiler.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by KenJackson on Tue 16th Oct 2007 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I don't think GCC would compile to a proprietary Microsoft file format.

For several years I have been using GCC compiled as a cross compiler to generate Windows binaries (MinGW) on my GNU/Linux development platform. It works very well.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: ...
by anevilyak on Wed 17th Oct 2007 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

... I don't think GCC would compile to a proprietary Microsoft file format. ^^:


Except it's not proprietary, it's a derivative of System V's COFF and the technical details are known, especially given that ReactOS uses it. Whether there's a gcc backend that outputs it is another question that I'm not sure as to the answer of.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by anevilyak on Wed 17th Oct 2007 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

Double post...stupid browser cache.

Edited 2007-10-17 14:27

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by stestagg on Wed 17th Oct 2007 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Yet again, you amaze us with your lack of comprehension and knowledge.

It is possible to compile PE executables using GCC, with MinGW, it is even possible to link into the existing windows API.
You can even cross-compile working PE executables from GCC in Linux (having installed the correct, freely-available packages) I'd like to see the VC++ compiler compile working ELFs that can link into, say, the Ubuntu library set easily.

Reply Score: 2

FUD
by superman on Mon 15th Oct 2007 22:06 UTC
superman
Member since:
2006-08-01

Theo de Raadt is ... incredible.

Do you prefer Theo de Raadt interview or Get the facts from MS ?

Get the facts is more polish.

Reply Score: 2

RE: FUD
by Lobotomik on Tue 16th Oct 2007 06:00 UTC in reply to "FUD"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

I prefer not to read anything that has anything to do with TdR. His self-righteousness, the way he seethes bile, are to me profoundly discomforting.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: FUD
by butters on Tue 16th Oct 2007 07:19 UTC in reply to "RE: FUD"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

We're talking about Theo de Raadt, not Ann Coulter. I think he genuinely means well despite his obsession with a particular culture that he believes is stripping his culture of its essence. So he's more like Lou Dobbs.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: FUD
by Oliver on Tue 16th Oct 2007 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE: FUD"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Follow the dictatorship of RMS or follow Linus instead, the man who axes every other opinion, the man who first speaks, then thinks about it (interface-nazis, FreeBSD morons and so on). Some people prefer quality, other people are prefering some messiah. OBSD people are following de Raadt because of quality. His credo: shut up and code!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: FUD
by Lobotomik on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FUD"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Maybe "code", but shut up? That is definitely NOT his credo.

So OBSD people are "following" de Raadt? How sad... Talk about the messiah! Has he given you his shoe? Or is it a sandal? Or maybe it is an encrypted pic of the sacred pumpkin of Raadt.

Reply Score: 1

RE: FUD
by estrabd on Tue 16th Oct 2007 19:13 UTC in reply to "FUD"
estrabd Member since:
2006-01-18

I like the guy - he is very refreshing.

Reply Score: 2

And this is news because...?
by gogglesguy on Mon 15th Oct 2007 22:21 UTC
gogglesguy
Member since:
2007-08-10

It doesn't really add that much to the original announcement. It will be more news worthy when it actually can compile the full i386 tree though... but the road is still long...

Reply Score: 1

RE: And this is news because...?
by Janizary on Mon 15th Oct 2007 22:26 UTC in reply to "And this is news because...?"
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

For just i386? Not all that long. But OpenBSD cares more about older platforms, the real news is when PPC, sparc and AMD64 ports all compile.

Reply Score: 5

Go Competition
by Bink on Mon 15th Oct 2007 23:34 UTC
Bink
Member since:
2006-02-19

That was way too short to be an interview—and I wouldn’t even call it news worthy—but it’s nice to see another free compiler get some “mainstream” attention. If anything, maybe it’ll cause GCC to become a bit better.

Reply Score: 4

sight...
by diegocg on Mon 15th Oct 2007 23:35 UTC
diegocg
Member since:
2005-07-08

GCC is mostly a commercial compiler, these days. Cygnus software has been bought by redhat. Most GCC development is done by commercial linux distributors, and also Apple. They mostly target *fast* i386 architectures and PowerPC.

Maybe that's happening because Linux does have commercial success? As far as I know, BSD developers have not been forbidden from contributing GCC. Of course, there're not as many BSD developers as Linux developers. But the GCC project can't solve it, except by forbidding Linux and Apple developers from contributing.

The same WRT to hardware architectures. Do the openbsd developers think that developers of PCC are going to focus on anything but common arches like x86 and ppc? lol....


GCC warnings are not *really* useful

GCC is not perfect, news at 11. If we get a technical POV to the discussion, PCC is crap compared to GCC and following the poster reasonement you should use GCC, not PCC. Crazy reasonement, of course...


In other words, apparently some openbsd developers can't understand what a community is and how a OSS projects work. There're more Linux developers, so there's a small bias towards Linux, that's not evil, is how democracy is supposed to work. Once you accept it it's not hard to realize that a software project can't get developed in the direction you want, when you're a minority. KDE, Gnome, X.org are also Linux biased...what is openbsd going to do, fork all of those projects, or create new replacements?

Reply Score: 11

RE: sight...
by Janizary on Mon 15th Oct 2007 23:41 UTC in reply to "sight..."
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

If the GCC was more community oriented, it wouldn't be dropping hardware support that the community wants, but older platforms are being dropped - why do you think OpenBSD has to use multiple GCCs?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: sight...
by diegocg on Mon 15th Oct 2007 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE: sight..."
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

GCC drops platforms because nobody maintains them. In other words, the community does not care so much about them as you say, because they'd support it if they really cared.

You have two choices: The dictadure of the minority or the dictadure of the majority. You're free to choose the dictadure of the minority, but don't expect the majority to care about you.

Reply Score: 17

RE[3]: sight...
by edwdig on Tue 16th Oct 2007 01:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sight..."
edwdig Member since:
2005-08-22

GCC drops platforms because nobody maintains them. In other words, the community does not care so much about them as you say, because they'd support it if they really cared.

I don't think you can realistically say that. Compilers are one of the most complex types of software projects there are. Very, very, few people are capable of contributing to a modern compiler.

Also, ones of the major reasons for this PCC movement is that the GCC code is difficult to work with by design.

Things have to be REALLY bad to reach the point where people think it's easier to take a primative compiler an get it up to speed than it is to work with an existing one.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[3]: sight...
by Duffman on Tue 16th Oct 2007 07:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sight..."
RE[3]: sight...
by Oliver on Tue 16th Oct 2007 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sight..."
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>free to choose the dictadure of the minority

Or some people call this some respect for the minority to some extent. This big community you're speaking of, is out of laziness almost instantly ready to axe a project.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: sight...
by butters on Tue 16th Oct 2007 07:44 UTC in reply to "RE: sight..."
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

why do you think OpenBSD has to use multiple GCCs?


Because the OpenBSD project didn't have either the desire or the means to maintain GCC's niche architecture support? I suppose it must be a lack of desire, since a lack of means would be a problem if they intend to implement all of these architectures for an alternative compiler on their own.

GCC clearly isn't where it needs to be as the keystone of the free software toolchain. Hopefully some good ideas will come out of PCC. In the free software world, you must never be afraid of competition. However, for practical reasons I have a hard time envisioning PCC becoming a successful project in its own right. It seems the odds are stacked against them. It also seems that OpenBSD has more important challenges that they could be focusing on. I feel that PCC could become a distraction.

On the whole, I think that PCC is an interesting project whose progress should be watched closely. I'm glad that somebody is undertaking this challenge, as you have to be a glutton for punishment to reinvent the compiler suite. The legendary Fred Brooks remarked that his troubled project to develop an Algol compiler for OS/360 taught him that compilers generally take three times longer than expected to develop.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: sight...
by Soulbender on Tue 16th Oct 2007 09:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sight..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

However, for practical reasons I have a hard time envisioning PCC becoming a successful project in its own right


Well, it does primarily aim to be a C compiler, not an "everything-and-the-kitchen-sink" compiler that GCC is. That cuts down the scope quite a bit.
(Fortran? News flash, it's not 1975 anymore...)

It also seems that OpenBSD has more important challenges that they could be focusing on.


Like what? Being ignored by the GCC people? ;)
Obviously they've grown weary of battling GCC and took a good look at the alternatives. These decisions arent made overnight, although a lot of people here (most certainly almost all non-developers) seems to think so.

Either way, OpenBSD's goal for PCC is to have it build the base system, not all of ports, so it does not have to deal with all those "esoteric" GCC features. GCC will still be in ports and will most likely be required to build many ports for a long time to come.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: sight...
by theine on Tue 16th Oct 2007 10:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sight..."
theine Member since:
2005-09-29

GCC clearly isn't where it needs to be as the keystone of the free software toolchain.

It seems everybody enjoys bitching about GCC, but I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why the above statement is true.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: sight...
by cubidou on Tue 16th Oct 2007 12:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: sight..."
cubidou Member since:
2006-04-09

Look at the source code one day, your eyes will ache.

Having an alternative to GCC (note how I'm not saying "replacing") is good, anyway. There are multiple use for an alternate compiler: for instance, PCC is much, much faster than GCC. It's a huge advantage for a developer that needs to recompile parts of his tree on a regular basis.

Besides, one month ago PCC was still Anders Magnusson's hobby project which he merely told about on a NetBSD list...

The people who make a political issue out of all this are out of their way, and if you read carefully and objectively the interview, even Theo doesn't make it a political issue. 'Nuff said.

Quentin Garnier.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: sight...
by Oliver on Tue 16th Oct 2007 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: sight..."
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Maybe you should start developing then ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: sight...
by Oliver on Tue 16th Oct 2007 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sight..."
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>I suppose it must be a lack of desire, since a lack of means would be a problem if they intend to implement all of these architectures for an alternative compiler on their own.

It's always nice to read OSNews, where people are full of FUD because of massive lack of any knowledge.

1.) it's primary a NetBSD project
2.) OpenBSD will contribute to it (and some FreeBSD developers too)
3.) if you read the interview, it's somewhat an idea for future development

Last not least, they have a lack of developers. And don't forget they're eager to use such a compiler because it's easier to maintain in the long run.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: sight...
by NxStY on Tue 16th Oct 2007 07:52 UTC in reply to "RE: sight..."
NxStY Member since:
2005-11-12

GCC drops an architechture only if it's
1. unmaintained.
2. Has been marked as deprecated for two releases (two years).
3. Has issues that nobody is fixining due to the lack of a maintainer.

So if the community relly wants this arch, why doesn't anyone just send a mail to the gcc list during those two years and complain? Or preferably submit some patches? And if the arch has been dropped they can always fix it and resubmit it.

Reply Score: 8

RE: sight...
by Soulbender on Tue 16th Oct 2007 03:54 UTC in reply to "sight..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Do the openbsd developers think that developers of PCC are going to focus on anything but common arches like x86 and ppc?


That is exactly one of the reasons they're going with PCC, support for architectures that GCC has dropped. Perhaps you should try to read the articles and get a clue?

PCC is crap compared to GCC and following the poster reasonement you should use GCC, not PCC. Crazy reasonement, of course...


More baseless crap from someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. Seriously, why are you so afraid of some competition? GCC wasn't all that awesome when in the beginning either. It's called evolution. You know, the process by which software gets better over time.
That's why both Theo and Otto say the road is still long.
But hey, why bother with thinking when you can go into rabid anti-OpenBSD mode?

In other words, apparently some openbsd developers can't understand what a community is and how a OSS projects work.


On the contrary, they know exactly how it works. Why is there KDE, GNOME and XFCE? Why cant they all just work on one environment? Why are there different window managers? Web servers? Audio players? Because people want and need different things.
GCC isn't some holy grail that fits everyone's needs.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: sight...
by Tweek on Tue 16th Oct 2007 04:16 UTC in reply to "RE: sight..."
Tweek Member since:
2006-01-12

"GCC isn't some holy grail that fits everyone's needs."

That really rang true. Of course the people knocking the development efforts are non developers who are completely irrelevant when it comes to these decisions.

The rest either agree with the need or are happy with whatever else. They are the ones that matter, not the posters on osnews who have never directly done anything with the product in question. It is fairly easy to see the ones that have never even required a compiler directly

Reply Score: 5

RE: sight...
by ameasures on Tue 16th Oct 2007 08:46 UTC in reply to "sight..."
ameasures Member since:
2006-01-09

>>Do the openbsd developers think that developers of
>>PCC are going to focus on anything but common arches
>>like x86 and ppc? lol....

The guy doing the work was interviewed on BSDTalk and he spoke well; coming across as a genuinely good guy.

In that interview he made it clear that support for other architectures is not a big deal. In some cases the back end code is already there but need tidying up and updating.

As an altogether smaller code base than GCC, supporting one language without the complexities of OO, PCC could move faster than some people expect it to. We could see it as a build option for the BSD's in a year or so.

GCC is a wonderful thing and will remain in order to support a long list of languages; however, for C it is not difficult to imagine PCC becoming the compiler of choice for some people on the grounds of speed.

The heading implies PCC is an OpenBSD project; this is wrong. OpenBSD is merely an enthusiastic early adopter.

Reply Score: 4

Large projects...
by mfbernstein on Tue 16th Oct 2007 01:19 UTC
mfbernstein
Member since:
2007-10-16

The difficulty with GCC is the same as almost any large project: different groups of developers with different goals. Because RedHat (and now Apple) employ most of the GCC developers, their interests carry more weight.

Maintaining a fast portable compiler is difficult when only a small portion of the developer-base uses slow non-x86 hardware. RedHat wants a compiler optimized for fancy C++ code and scientific computation on the latest-and-greatest. OpenBSD wants a compiler that runs quickly and stably on Vax and m68k hardware. You can see where this goes.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: ...
by Janizary on Tue 16th Oct 2007 02:16 UTC
Janizary
Member since:
2006-03-12

Oddly enough, one of the big reasons why I use Windows is PuTTY.


Putty runs on OpenBSD even.

PuTTY has better documentation, a simpler interface (i.e. no need to pull out vi to edit config files or deal with long command line parameters), and seems to behave with non OpenSSH servers better.


I disagree quite strongly, but I come from a Unix perspective, where we understand man pages and prefer simple to use text config files over giant monsterous guis. Perhaps you should be using VNC. I've never even encountered a non-OpenSSH server, so I can't really comment on your compatability jab.

Edited 2007-10-16 02:16

Reply Score: 3

What's with all the hate?
by mdoverkil on Tue 16th Oct 2007 03:02 UTC
mdoverkil
Member since:
2005-09-30

Seriously, the openbsd project presented their reasons for wanting a new compiler, Whether you agree with them or not is irrelavent. It's their time and effort, why don't you just wish them the best of luck and hope something good comes out of the project?

Reply Score: 10

RE: What's with all the hate?
by Soulbender on Tue 16th Oct 2007 03:41 UTC in reply to "What's with all the hate?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It's their time and effort, why don't you just wish them the best of luck and hope something good comes out of the project?


Yeah, it's odd isn't it? Guess some people are very afraid of competition for their beloved GCC.
Of course, mentioning OpenBSD always brings out the freeloading, non-contributing haters.

Reply Score: 3

Use which they think is suitable
by cyberkoa on Tue 16th Oct 2007 03:47 UTC
cyberkoa
Member since:
2006-10-18

if don't like gcc , use others which they think is suitable in their case, this is the "free" that we always say.

Reply Score: 1

OpenWatcom
by udragon on Tue 16th Oct 2007 07:23 UTC
udragon
Member since:
2007-10-16

Don't forget OpenWatcom.
The Watcom compiler has become open-source several years ago and has now Linux and exerimental BSD support.
www.openwatcom.org

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by BSDfan on Tue 16th Oct 2007 14:30 UTC
BSDfan
Member since:
2007-03-14

@Almafeta: Are you stoned? binutils targets several architectures and binary formats..

GCC uses binutils for a linker and assembler.. And binutils "does" support PE/COFF executables..

Uneducated goof.. ;)

Still, I welcome the PCC project.. a simple.. light.. BSD licenced compiler is very welcome..

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by BSDfan on Tue 16th Oct 2007 18:34 UTC
BSDfan
Member since:
2007-03-14

@Almafeta: OK, Now you're just embarrassing yourself.. Microsoft's PE format is simply an extension of COFF (Which predates Microsoft..)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COFF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Executable

Again, binutils and GCC can handle native Windows applications perfectly fine. (Google MinGW..)

Reply Score: 4