🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2B4A0FD5.FD6B@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> From discussion on this newsgroup, I'm given to understand that
> someone is working on a truly free (public domain or equivalent)
> C compiler.  Is this impression correct?  If so, who's doing it?

It's called `gcc', by the good folks at the Free Software Foundation.  You
can get it, and tons of other stuff, by ftp from a lot of places
(ftp.uu.net:/systems/gnu and prep.ai.mit.edu:/pub/gnu to name a couple, do
a `dir gcc*', also take a look in ./GNUinfo).  There are also a few `gnu'
newsgroups (e.g. gnu.announce, gnu.gcc.announce) that can give you more
information.

> -- 
> Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
>   "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
>    want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagels to my face /
>    and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "The trouble with this country is
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   that there are too many people
possibly represent its position.	|   going about saying, 'The trouble
					|   with this country is --'"
Christian H. L. Moller			|     -- Sinclair Lewis

In article <C0FuFu.o41@austin.ibm.com> moller@austin.ibm.com (Christian
H. L. Moller) writes:
>In article <2B4A0FD5.FD6B@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>> From discussion on this newsgroup, I'm given to understand that
>> someone is working on a truly free (public domain or equivalent)
>> C compiler.  Is this impression correct?  If so, who's doing it?
>
>It's called `gcc', by the good folks at the Free Software Foundation.  You
>can get it, and tons of other stuff, by ftp from a lot of places
>(ftp.uu.net:/systems/gnu and prep.ai.mit.edu:/pub/gnu to name a couple, do
>a `dir gcc*', also take a look in ./GNUinfo).  There are also a few `gnu'
>newsgroups (e.g. gnu.announce, gnu.gcc.announce) that can give you more
>information.

No, Christian, you miss the point.  I think Chip knows very much all about 
gcc and the FSF.  GCC is NOT public domain.  It is till copyrighted, by
the FSF.  

What Chip want's  to know about is a _truly_ pd compiler.  I've seen a few
posts here (well, 2 actually I can remember, but I dont' read everything 
posted to this group), I have doubts to their dedication to the project.

Writing a compiler is a daunting project (ask the FSF!).  Writing a portable
compiler, even more so.  While someone may write a complete compiler for 
one machine, and release it into the public domain, with a statement like
"Feel free to use this, and port to other machines!", it becomes quite a 
logistic problem to try to incorporate changes into the original compiler
in a coherent manner.  And I feel it's really more than one person could
handle.

When I see posts like "my friend is working on a pd compiler," I tend to have
doubts.  If I see something like "for our graduate project, we are trying to
implement a portable compiler accross multiple machine, and it will be 
released into the public domain," then I'll tend to give it a little more
credence (after all, the slavedr^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hadvisor will probably just provide
incentive and some coordination).  It's not that I would doubt the sincerity
of an individual to attempt such a project, I just really doubt one person
could do it and remain sane (hmm.... rms....?? nahhhh  :-)

just some random ramblings,
mrc
-- 
Mike Castle .-=NEXUS=-.  Life is like a clock:  You can work constantly
  mcastle@cs.umr.edu     and be right all the time, or not work at all
S087891@UMRVMA.UMR.EDU   and be right at least twice a day.  -- mrc
    We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan.  -- Watchmen

In article <C0FuFu.o41@austin.ibm.com>, moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller) writes:
|> In article <2B4A0FD5.FD6B@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
|> > From discussion on this newsgroup, I'm given to understand that
|> > someone is working on a truly free (public domain or equivalent)
|> > C compiler.  Is this impression correct?  If so, who's doing it?
|> 
|> It's called `gcc', by the good folks at the Free Software Foundation.  You
|> can get it, and tons of other stuff, by ftp from a lot of places
|> (ftp.uu.net:/systems/gnu and prep.ai.mit.edu:/pub/gnu to name a couple, do
|> a `dir gcc*', also take a look in ./GNUinfo).  There are also a few `gnu'
|> newsgroups (e.g. gnu.announce, gnu.gcc.announce) that can give you more
|> information.

[stuff deleted ]

Hey you forgot to mention gnu.misc.discuss :-)


--
gmh@awd.cdc.com              |  "Hey look, over there!
Greg Heideman                |   It's Frank Sinatra, sitting in a chair,
Automated Wagering Int.      |   And he's blowing perfect smoke rings
                             |   Up into the air!" -Laurie Anderson

Michael R Castle writes:

   Writing a compiler is a daunting project (ask the FSF!).  Writing a portable
   compiler, even more so.  

There is LCC from princeton. The backends [that optimize as well
or better as GCC] are not available except by special educational
arrangement, but one can [for example] adapt arizona PO as a
backend...

here is the README. 

... oz


    lcc is a retargetable compiler for C as defined by the ANSI Standard
    X3.159-1989. lcc is in production use at Princeton University and
    AT&T Bell Laboratories.
    
    The public distribution directory contains the following files.
    
    README  this file.
    
    install.{tex,ps}
            describes the distribution and gives installation
            instructions.  install.ps is the PostScript generated from
            the LaTeX input install.tex, which is also included in
            the distribution.
    
    lccfe-X.Y.tar.Z
            a compressed tar file for the `Front-end' distribution of
            version X.Y, e.g., lccfe-1.9.tar.Z.  This distribution
            includes the front end, the driver program, a demonstration
            VAX code generator, a `symbolic' code generator, a test
            suite, and user documentation.
    
    The distribution is available via `anonymous' ftp from princeton.edu
    (128.112.128.1) in the directory pub/lcc. Obtaining and extracting the
    distribution into its own directory is accomplished by the following
    commands. Replace `1.9' with the latest version, which is the only one
    typically available; versions like `1.9a' identify minor updates. As
    suggested, use your login as the password, and use ftp's binary
    transfer mode.
    
    mkdir lcc
    cd lcc
    ftp princeton.edu
    anonymous
    yourlogin
    cd pub/lcc
    binary
    get lccfe-1.9.tar.Z dist.tar.Z
    quit
    zcat dist.tar | tar xpof -
    rm dist.tar.Z
    
    To be added to the lcc mailing list, send your preferred electronic
    mail address to lcc-requests@princeton.edu.
    
    Production code generators for the VAX, MIPS, and Motorola 68020 are
    available for research use to universities willing to execute a license
    agreement. Contact Chris Fraser (cwf@research.att.com) for details.
    These code generators are automatically generated from compact
    specifications, but neither the specifications nor their processor is
    available, only the generated code generators.
    
    1/3/93

According to mcastle@cs.umr.edu (Michael R Castle):
>In article <C0FuFu.o41@austin.ibm.com> moller@austin.ibm.com (Christian
>H. L. Moller) writes:
>>In article <2B4A0FD5.FD6B@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>>[Where is] a truly free (public domain or equivalent) C compiler?
>>
>>It's called `gcc' ...
>
>I think Chip knows very much all about gcc and the FSF.

Yes, I do.  I've even participated in the development of GCC 2.0; just
read the ChangeLog for evidence.

>What Chip want's to know about is a _truly_ pd compiler.

Not quite.  Reread my article.  I'm looking for "PD or equivalent"
compilers.  Something with terms like BSD's or X's would be just fine.
So the Princeton LCC front end is exactly the kind of software I'm
looking for.

>It becomes quite a logistic problem to try to incorporate changes into
>the original [single-target] compiler in a coherent manner.  And I feel
>it's really more than one person could handle.

True; but then, a single coordinator with many Usenet volunteers can do
more than you might think.  Consider Elm.

>I just really doubt one person could do it and remain sane (hmm....
>rms....?? nahhhh  :-)

:-)
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
  "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
   want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagels to my face /
   and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"

> I've seen a few posts here [...] I have doubts to their dedication
> to the project.

Well, "dedication"...  I've been writing a free C compiler as a
hobby.  I can't guarantee eternal "dedication"; so far I've stuck
with it.  It really is an interesting and challenging project.

The front end is 95% done (doesn't it always seem like your programs
are 95% finished?); a back end is early stages of construction.

(With suitable definitions of "back end" & "front end".)

An ANSI C test suite (way over 50% of my effort so far) is shaping
up very nicely.

If you want a compiler in a shiny plastic wrapper, a glossy
manual with pictures of cute furry animals explaining its use,
delivered to your door by Federal Express -- shop elsewhere.

> Writing a compiler is a daunting project

"Daunting" is a bit strong; it's not _that_ difficult.  Depends;
if you want to put in every conceivable optimization and port
it to everything from vector processors to toasters...

A reasonably reliable (better than what you usually get in UN*X)
compiler with a couple of back ends is certainly doable.

> Writing a portable compiler, even more so.

This isn't *too* bad either.  Depends on the machine specific
optimizations you want to do; code generation is not that
difficult given the research that has been published over the
last 10..15 years.

Debugging information is a pain.  I don't think I'll be able
to do that for more than a few machines by myself.

Otherwise, I'd venture to guess that the portability problems
of e.g. tcsh are far greater than those of a well written compiler.

> it becomes quite a logistic problem to try to incorporate changes
> into the original compiler in a coherent manner.

Depends...  If you just want to merge machine dependent changes (code
generator generator descriptions etc) it isn't too bad.  If you
incorporate optimizations and language extensions you'll have more
work.

Incorporating changes you can't test is a lot of work but others
seem to be coping (tcsh? elm?)  I'm looking forward to it if I
ever get there.

You know, there is a theory that says that free software tends to be
easy to maintain because there are so many people who can help with it.
If the original authors can't continue working on it, the theory says
someone else can adopt it.  Maybe that is even true!

> I just really doubt one person could do it and remain sane

Thanks a lot, sunshine :-)  I've always been halfway over the hill
so this doesn't bother me.
									++sja

I could be wrong, because I don't actually have a copy and the term "PD" is
sometimes used rather loosely, but I think the Sozobon C compiler (for Atari
ST) is Public Domain.

I also note that the documentation for the (shareware) Gemini desktop includes
source-level patches for known bugs in this compiler, illustrating the classic
problem of PD software - no "owner" who makes it his business to fix bugs and
integrate patches.  (As a registered user of Gemini I expect and get this from
the authors).

Of course Gemini also includes patches for TOS - but at least we have Atari to
collect all the PD patches off the networks and sell them back as the latest
TOS release...

__________________________________________________________________________
Chris Gray        | Any views expressed are those of the author and not of 
cgra@se.alcbel.be | any organisation with the author may be associated.

Not only am I following myself up, I am also wandering from the thread -
but a public slur deserves a public apology.

A correspondent has rightly taken me to task for implying that the Sozobon
C compiler may be poorly supported.  Not so, he says - the authors are very
responsive.

Obviously the inclusion of bug fixes with the Gemini distribution can be
interpreted in more than one way - it could be for example that the Gemini
authors had reported their bug to Sozobon and that the latter immediately
fixed it _in the next release of the compiler_ - but it would be prudent
of the Gemini authors to assume that not everyone had this.  Most individual
users of a compiler will never bother to upgrade as long as it "works".

Once again, abject apologies for the uninformed slur.  Maybe Sozobon is a
shining example of well-supported PD.  And after all, support is what it's
all about.  PD, Shareware, commercial, or GPL-d: without support, it's no
use to man nor beast.  Unfortunately support is neither fun nor sexy, for
most people at any rate; all the more credit to people who not only take
on the intellectual challenge of developing a compiler or gui or ..., but
then stick around to support it.

Now when you pay good money for commercial software, and they demand huge
sums for upgrades, and if you don't upgrade they won't support you, and
no you _can't_ have the source - that's when you can make an informed
criticism.

- Chris -
__________________________________________________________________________
Chris Gray        | Any views expressed are those of the author and not of 
cgra@se.alcbel.be | any organisation with the author may be associated.

Craig Burley writes [many things, mostly elided]:

		...  Sure, if the PD source has been distributed even
   once, _theoretically_ anyone can get at it, but that assurance is
   not practical in today's society -- many people _will_ end up with
   the binary and no information on how to get at the source.

Mr. softwarecraftsperson, I don't think you have any idea as to what is
practical today, or what was practical a decade ago.  I spent a great
deal of the last decade of my life obtaining and distributing [as a DECUS
Canada librarian since 83 for VMS and later for UN*X, and as a private
programmer] megabytes of free software of all flavors, and my experience
is that *if* people are sufficiently interested, literate and are able to
communicate, there is hardly any difference between GPL-propped software
and other source-distributed free software in terms of getting to its
various forms, so long as people care enough to want to get it.

   If disassembling large binaries becomes something fairly easy, then
   many advantages of the GPL over PD will be reduced, of course.

Even if one is naive enough to assume that PD is the *only* alternative
to GPL, substantiating those "many advantages of GPL over PD" in any level
of seriousness would take considerably more than the cacophony of the
converted.

   My suggestion to those with preferences for PD over GPL, _please_
   hurry up and write a high-quality PD C compiler and distribute it
   widely with sources.

Maybe it won't be PD, but probably won't have an ideology attachment
either.

... oz
---
Truth doesn't always win friends, but | electric: oz@nexus.yorku.ca
influences people.      -- Batty Koda | pho: [416] 736 2100 x 33976

According to burley@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley):
>Fact remains, a purchaser must do quite a bit more research to ensure
>that a "PD C compiler" has source available than a "GPL-protected C
>compiler" once that purchaser learns what PD and GPL really mean.

I'd contest that point.  All the purchaser need do is make one very
simple stipulation: "We purchase only programs that include the source
code necessary to produce the delivered executables (if any)."  Now
where's the "quite a bit more research"?

>I pointed out that the GPL carries with it various useful elements
>that PD doesn't.

No way.  You pointed out the differences between GPL and PD, and then
made a bald claim that they constituted improvements.  Such a claim is
not proof.

>So it is easier for me to say "get GPL-protected stuff" then "get PD
>stuff as long as it comes with source, make sure it's the actual
>source used to build _your_ version, etc" and explain what both mean.
>Naturally, I do that ...

So if they have to be educated anyway, what's the problem with PD?
That education will always be needed, forever.  So there's no reason
not to release any given program as PD instead of GPL.

>Explaining the intricacies of how to protect themselves against
>bait-and-switch tactics possible for PD (but, to my knowledge, never
>used) just about requires teaching them software engineering.

No software distribution scheme will eliminate fraud, period.
Remember that we're talking about a customer who asks for source.
Misrepresenting delivered software, including PD software, is fraud.
Anyone willing to act illegally in this way (fraudulent PD delivery)
will also be willing to act illegally in another way (GPL breakage).
GPL does not have an advantage over PD in this way, specifically
because PD binaries don't land on anyone's computer unrequested.

>Simply put: given GCC, a GPL-protected C compiler, and "PDC", a (so
>far mythical) PD C compiler, a user knows more about GCC than PDC...

So the GPL is a known quantity, once you know it.  This is unique?  If
your praise of GPL-covered programs is that their licensing terms are
consistent, that praise is awfully faint.

>I wasn't saying the GPL is a condom.  What I was saying is that because
>the GPL will ensure that g77 will always be distributed source-available
>(which PD would not), it is far less likely it will be made the
>carrier of a virus.

No way.  It's not the GPL that protects you, it's source distribution
that protects you.

Once you've decided to distribute a binary, you're open to virus
infection, GPL or no.  Virus creation is illegal!  Once a virus writer
has decided to commit an illegal act, do you really think he would
give a moment's consideration to the GPL?  Not a chance.

>How does violating the terms of the GPL avoid a big fine?

If he were to distribute the source to his derivative work (e.g.
the "g77+virus" work), he would finger himself as the virus maker.
And he's off to court.  He wouldn't ever do that.

>Now, g77 is a GPL-protected Fortran compiler.  A virus writer cannot
>legally distribute a binary of g77 without the source ...

As if a virus writer strives to live within the law.  Hah.

>or the copyright owner of g77 can sue even if laws are insufficient
>to attack the virus writer on the basis of having disseminated a virus.

But those laws _are_ quite sufficient -- if the virus writer is
identified (which he almost certainly will not be, since he won't
do anything as stupid as publishing virus-infected sources).

>Further, identifying the virus writer is much easier since each
>distributor of the g77 binary is legally required to distribute
>source as well, so the sources can be used to track how and where the
>virus appeared.

But all the hypothetical virus writer need to is upload the binary
to (say) a BBS.  What will the copyright holder do -- sue the BBS
owner?  No way.  So the virus writer gets off scot free.

>Further, the customers with the infected g77 can fairly easily
>rebuild g77 from sources patched to not include the virus once info
>on the virus gets out.

That's also true of source-available PD.

>It is much easier to tighten the distribution channels for the GPL
>stuff just by telling all ftp sites & such to always compile from
>scratch or not distribute binaries [...]

The FSF can't do that.  The GPL does not prohibit binary distribution,
and FSF can't go back in time and change it just because a virus
writer throws a monkey wrench in the current plan.  Or are you now
forced to resort to a hypothetical GPL 3, which won't cover existing
programs anyway?

>>You do your argument a disservice by bringing up such irrelevancies
>>as viruses.
>
>Viruses are hardly irrelevant to the business world.

But they are not relevant to PD vs. GPL (at least in my opinion),
and that's what I meant.

>End-users also want to be sure they can get support for their
>software.

>They might get quite annoyed if they find a bad bug in, say, f2c+PDC
>and discover that the binary they're using for their particular machine
>has no source (or they can't find it) ...

Anyone who loses source code is in trouble, GPL or no.  After all,
even GPL programs have local fixes, and those fixes aren't always
propagated, in particular if the resulting binaries are for local use
only.

>At the moment, I'm unaware of a more effective means for
>disseminating knowledge widely in a form that also serves as a useful
>tool, and that also invites dissemination of fixes and enhancements
>to that knowledge that, themselves, make the tool even more useful.

That's great for the tool, but not necessarily for people who'd
want to take pieces of the tool and use them in ways not approved
by RMS.

>In practical terms, that's the difference between PD and GPL.  Sure,
>if the PD source has been distributed even once, _theoretically_
>anyone can get at it, but that assurance is not practical in today's
>society -- many people _will_ end up with the binary [...]

Well, there's the core disagreement.  I don't see the world that way.

>Please hurry up and write a high-quality PD C compiler and distribute
>it widely with sources.

I'm working on it.  Really.

>Of course, once the PDC comes out with better optimization than GCC,
>there's every reason to expect that people will learn from PDC how
>to add those optimizations to GCC [...]

What GCC and (in particular) G++ need are a more rational internal
structure and a complete rejection of block-copy-as-reuse-method,
with the result of a lower maintenance load.  Optimization is gravy.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
  "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
   want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagels to my face /
   and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"