undefined | Better HN

0 pointsDannyBee12y ago0 comments

The rewrite is the part where you continue to claim it was driven at all by licensing

"The conclusion I've drawn from it is that GPLv3 was a significant driver in the decision to seek out and drive forward a non-GPL compiler project. I didn't say it was the only factor, but I stand by my conclusion that it must have been a significant one."

I believe i've completely rebutted this statement with my response. I believe I accurately explained exactly what went into the decision to fund and use LLVM, and "seeking out and driving a non-GPL compiler project" was literally not on the list of things the decision makers (Ted, in this case) cared about.[1] If you have actual historical evidence to the contrary, that contradicts my explanation of what drove the decision to use LLVM, i'd love to hear it. So far what you've put forth is a single data point which I already explained, was, AFAIK, completely unrelated to the decision to use LLVM.

Also, Apple/Chris first suggested merging LLVM and GCC (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html), which would seem an odd strategy if licensing was the huge driver you claim it was.

Historically, the timeline isn't even close to right for your conclusion to be correct. Apple started seriously investing in LLVM in 2005, and the GCC GPLv3 switch didn't happen until 2009.

So, basically, you are welcome to stand by your conclusion, but it's, well, wrong :)

[1] In fact, Ted literally did not care about the licensing at all. They were considering using ICC as well, but this mostly got dropped after the switch to x86.

0 comments

stormbrew12y ago

The timing is a fair point, though I think you ignore one factor: While gcc didn't switch to gplv3 until 2009, gplv3 was released in draft form in 2006.

So I'll concede that it likely wasn't a direct cause of the move to and support of llvm, clang didn't come along until later -- and after it must have been clear that gcc would eventually be gplv3 licensed.

God knows GCC's codebase is a rats nest that few people really want to work with, but if it hadn't been for gplv3 do you really maintain that apple wouldn't have stuck with it as a frontend for longer? The early releases of clang (and gcc+llvm before it) were problematic for a lot of mac developers at the time, after all.

DannyBeeOP12y ago

"but if it hadn't been for gplv3 do you really maintain that apple wouldn't have stuck with it as a frontend for longer? "

Yes. Absolutely. It's been mentioned numerous times at conferences and other in-person meetings.

Apple did not write clang because of GPLv3. They wrote clang because they needed something that was

1. Faster than GCC 2. Offered better diagnostics 3. Could offer code completion and indexing for XCode.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse