www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D.gnu - Adding gdc to gcc

reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
I posted the question on this list:

http://www.listware.net/201011/gcc-gcc/25881-merging-gdc-gnu-d-compiler-into-gcc.html

hopefully we can move forward with this.
Nov 08 2010
next sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article
 I posted the question on this list:

 hopefully we can move forward with this.

This is indeed some delightful news to be waking up to. I sure hope we could gain some traction on this too. Regards
Nov 09 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Iain Buclaw wrote:
 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article
 I posted the question on this list:

 hopefully we can move forward with this.

This is indeed some delightful news to be waking up to. I sure hope we could gain some traction on this too.

Once I do the paperwork, it'll be up to you guys to convince gcc to merge it in! Getting gdc into the standard distribution will be a huge win for D.
Nov 09 2010
parent reply Jerry Quinn <jlquinn optonline.net> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 Iain Buclaw wrote:
 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article
 I posted the question on this list:

 hopefully we can move forward with this.


Getting gdc into the standard distribution will be a huge win for D.

Walter, it's great to see you've been able to find time to pursue this now! I'll certainly add my 2 cents to get integration going :-) I hope you can resolve the licensing issues to everyone's satisfaction. Even if the licensing issues are sorted out today, I don't think it can realistically be added to the gcc source tree before 4.7. They're already in stage 3, which will preclude any changes to the main compiler if needed. cheers, Jerry
Nov 10 2010
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jerry Quinn wrote:
 Even if the licensing issues are sorted out today, I don't think it can
 realistically be added to the gcc source tree before 4.7.

It's ok, we're in this for the long haul.
Nov 16 2010
prev sibling parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright schrieb:
 I posted the question on this list:
 
 http://www.listware.net/201011/gcc-gcc/25881-merging-gdc-gnu-d-co
piler-into-gcc.html 
 
 
 hopefully we can move forward with this.

That's *really* great news :-) To assign the copyright of all files to the FSF you need an OK of all GDC contributors, right? Have you asked them yet? If not, finding out who they were and getting a currenct E-Mail address of them etc may need some time.. so it made sense if someone would start doing that. Cheers, - Daniel
Nov 09 2010
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Daniel Gibson wrote:
 Walter Bright schrieb:
 I posted the question on this list:

 http://www.listware.net/201011/gcc-gcc/25881-merging-gdc-gnu-d-co
piler-into-gcc.html 


 hopefully we can move forward with this.

That's *really* great news :-) To assign the copyright of all files to the FSF you need an OK of all GDC contributors, right?

Not for the DMD front end.
 Have you asked them yet?
 If not, finding out who they were and getting a currenct E-Mail address 
 of them etc may need some time.. so it made sense if someone would start 
 doing that.

While the FSF will license the code back to Digital Mars, if the gdc folks contribute code that is FSF copyrighted, I cannot incorporate that back into the dmd front end. In other words, any changes in gdc that affect the front end should be given to Digital Mars, I will transfer the copyright to FSF, and get the license back. Otherwise, I cannot fold in those changes.
Nov 09 2010
parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Florian Weimer schrieb:
 * Walter Bright:
 
 In other words, any changes in gdc that affect the front end should be
 given to Digital Mars, I will transfer the copyright to FSF, and get
 the license back. Otherwise, I cannot fold in those changes.

In this case, it might be simpler to contribute and maintain the frontend under a less restrictive license, perhaps something BSD-style. (I'm assuming that the primary reason to choose the GPL was compatibility with GCC, which might not be the case.)

No, because GCC (or the FSF) wants to use the GPL with them having the copyright.
Nov 11 2010
parent Mandeep Singh Brar <mandeep brars.co.in> writes:
* Daniel Gibson:

 Florian Weimer schrieb:

 In this case, it might be simpler to contribute and maintain


 frontend under a less restrictive license, perhaps something
 BSD-style.  (I'm assuming that the primary reason to choose the


 was compatibility with GCC, which might not be the case.)

No, because GCC (or the FSF) wants to use the GPL with them

 the copyright.

Based on recent postings to the gcc mailing list, I think this is

to negotiations.

Is this still on?
May 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Florian Weimer <fw deneb.enyo.de> writes:
* Walter Bright:

 In other words, any changes in gdc that affect the front end should be
 given to Digital Mars, I will transfer the copyright to FSF, and get
 the license back. Otherwise, I cannot fold in those changes.

In this case, it might be simpler to contribute and maintain the frontend under a less restrictive license, perhaps something BSD-style. (I'm assuming that the primary reason to choose the GPL was compatibility with GCC, which might not be the case.)
Nov 11 2010
prev sibling parent Florian Weimer <fw deneb.enyo.de> writes:
* Daniel Gibson:

 Florian Weimer schrieb:

 In this case, it might be simpler to contribute and maintain the
 frontend under a less restrictive license, perhaps something
 BSD-style.  (I'm assuming that the primary reason to choose the GPL
 was compatibility with GCC, which might not be the case.)

No, because GCC (or the FSF) wants to use the GPL with them having the copyright.

Based on recent postings to the gcc mailing list, I think this is up to negotiations.
Nov 11 2010