digitalmars.D.announce - Re: D compiler as part of GCC
- Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> Jan 27 2010
- Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Jan 27 2010
- Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> Jan 27 2010
- Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> Jan 27 2010
- "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon gmail.com> Jan 27 2010
- Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> Jan 27 2010
- Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> Jan 28 2010
- Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> Jan 28 2010
- Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> Jan 28 2010
- Bee <iteronvexor gmail.com> Dec 13 2010
- Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> Jan 02 2011
- Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Jan 02 2011
- Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> Jan 03 2011
- Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> Dec 13 2010
Jerry Quinn Wrote:[also posted to D.gnu] Hi, folks, I'm interested in creating a D front end for GCC that would be part of the GCC codebase. My feeling is that a GDC that is part of GCC distributions will likely have more life than one that must be updated whenever a new GCC release comes out. As with linux kernel in-tree drivers being kept up to date, an integrated GDC would tend to move forward as well. To do this though, copyright on the code must be assigned to the FSF. This means that even though the DMD front end sources are licensed under the GPL, they cannot be directly used to write this front end as the copyright is owned by DigitalMars. Everyone who contributes code must not look at the DMD compiler source code to avoid accidentally contributing code illegally. Therefore, this will be a completely new implementation of D. The obvious disadvantage of doing this is that it will be a slow process to get to a working D compiler. However, one advantage to the D world is firming up and validating the language specification so that the language is not defined by what the DMD compiler does. My personal desire is to implement (and track) the 2.0 language since I would like to see that feature set available through GCC. Second, by the time a working front end becomes part of GCC, the 2.0 language will likely be complete. One question I have (of many) is whether a different name should be used. If this is called GDC there will be some confusion with the current GDC. What thoughts do you all have? In general is there interest in this project, especially contributing to it? Thanks, Jerry
Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are pushing it very hard.
Jan 27 2010
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:Jerry Quinn Wrote:[also posted to D.gnu] Hi, folks, I'm interested in creating a D front end for GCC that would be part of the GCC codebase. My feeling is that a GDC that is part of GCC distributions will likely have more life than one that must be updated whenever a new GCC release comes out. As with linux kernel in-tree drivers being kept up to date, an integrated GDC would tend to move forward as well. To do this though, copyright on the code must be assigned to the FSF. This means that even though the DMD front end sources are licensed under the GPL, they cannot be directly used to write this front end as the copyright is owned by DigitalMars. Everyone who contributes code must not look at the DMD compiler source code to avoid accidentally contributing code illegally. Therefore, this will be a completely new implementation of D. The obvious disadvantage of doing this is that it will be a slow process to get to a working D compiler. However, one advantage to the D world is firming up and validating the language specification so that the language is not defined by what the DMD compiler does. My personal desire is to implement (and track) the 2.0 language since I would like to see that feature set available through GCC. Second, by the time a working front end becomes part of GCC, the 2.0 language will likely be complete. One question I have (of many) is whether a different name should be used. If this is called GDC there will be some confusion with the current GDC. What thoughts do you all have? In general is there interest in this project, especially contributing to it? Thanks, Jerry
Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are pushing it very hard.
Who is "they"? Andrei
Jan 27 2010
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:Jerry Quinn Wrote:[also posted to D.gnu] Hi, folks, I'm interested in creating a D front end for GCC that would be part of the GCC codebase. My feeling is that a GDC that is part of GCC distributions will likely have more life than one that must be updated whenever a new GCC release comes out. As with linux kernel in-tree drivers being kept up to date, an integrated GDC would tend to move forward as well. To do this though, copyright on the code must be assigned to the FSF. This means that even though the DMD front end sources are licensed under the GPL, they cannot be directly used to write this front end as the copyright is owned by DigitalMars. Everyone who contributes code must not look at the DMD compiler source code to avoid accidentally contributing code illegally. Therefore, this will be a completely new implementation of D. The obvious disadvantage of doing this is that it will be a slow process to get to a working D compiler. However, one advantage to the D world is firming up and validating the language specification so that the language is not defined by what the DMD compiler does. My personal desire is to implement (and track) the 2.0 language since I would like to see that feature set available through GCC. Second, by the time a working front end becomes part of GCC, the 2.0 language will likely be complete. One question I have (of many) is whether a different name should be used. If this is called GDC there will be some confusion with the current GDC. What thoughts do you all have? In general is there interest in this project, especially contributing to it? Thanks, Jerry
Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are pushing it very hard.
Who is "they"? Andrei
Good question. Not sure if it is actually Google, or some enthusiast, but certainly that's a good result for a language that was released couple of months ago. Not to mention that it's not any near to D at this stage. All I want for D, if not being included into GCC oficially, but at least to have a maintained GCC compiler.
Jan 27 2010
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are pushing it very hard.
Andrei
Good question. Not sure if it is actually Google, or some enthusiast, but certainly that's a good result for a language that was released couple of months ago. Not to mention that it's not any near to D at this stage. All I want for D, if not being included into GCC oficially, but at least to have a maintained GCC compiler.
I agree. Although my perception is that Google itself is not pushing Go and that the language does not have legs to resist on merit alone, that may change any time. It would be great if D were present in GCC - thanks Jerry for your initiative, and please keep it up. Andrei
Jan 27 2010
Leandro Lucarella wrote:Andrei Alexandrescu, el 27 de enero a las 17:40 me escribiste:Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are pushing it very hard.
Andrei
but certainly that's a good result for a language that was released couple of months ago. Not to mention that it's not any near to D at this stage. All I want for D, if not being included into GCC oficially, but at least to have a maintained GCC compiler.
Go and that the language does not have legs to resist on merit alone, that may change any time. It would be great if D were present in GCC - thanks Jerry for your initiative, and please keep it up. Andrei
Just see the next message: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00501.html 2010-01-26 Ian Lance Taylor <iant google.com> * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Go frontend maintainer. If you think Google is not pushing Go, think again...
I'd seen that, but my understanding is that Ian is a maintainer of the frontend, not necessarily that Google is pushing Go or even that Google is paying him to spend time on Go. What am I missing? Andrei
Jan 28 2010
Leandro Lucarella wrote:Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de enero a las 09:49 me escribiste:Just see the next message: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00501.html 2010-01-26 Ian Lance Taylor <iant google.com> * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Go frontend maintainer. If you think Google is not pushing Go, think again...
the frontend, not necessarily that Google is pushing Go or even that Google is paying him to spend time on Go. What am I missing?
They are paying him to spend time on Go, at least is a "20% project".
Aw come on. I knew when I wrote the message I'll leave place for that semantic loophole, but I hoped you wouldn't be taking it so I didn't bother to preempt. Anyway... an employee spending time on a 20% project is a far cry from "Google is pushing Go". Anyone at Google could choose to do anything they please for their 20% projects. Andrei
Jan 28 2010
On 01/27/2010 03:40 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are pushing it very hard.
I bet it helps that Go was originally implemented as a front-end to GCC
Jan 27 2010
On 1/27/2010 5:56 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:On 01/27/2010 03:40 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:Google's Go will be in GCC. <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html>.
I bet it helps that Go was originally implemented as a front-end to GCC
I’d thought the original compiler was based on Ken Thompson’s C compiler for Plan 9. —Joel Salomon
Jan 27 2010
On 01/27/2010 11:24 PM, Joel C. Salomon wrote:On 1/27/2010 5:56 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:On 01/27/2010 03:40 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:Google's Go will be in GCC.<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html>.
I bet it helps that Go was originally implemented as a front-end to GCC
I’d thought the original compiler was based on Ken Thompson’s C compiler for Plan 9. —Joel Salomon
Meh, one of the two
Jan 27 2010
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 27 de enero a las 17:40 me escribiste:Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are pushing it very hard.
Andrei
Good question. Not sure if it is actually Google, or some enthusiast, but certainly that's a good result for a language that was released couple of months ago. Not to mention that it's not any near to D at this stage. All I want for D, if not being included into GCC oficially, but at least to have a maintained GCC compiler.
I agree. Although my perception is that Google itself is not pushing Go and that the language does not have legs to resist on merit alone, that may change any time. It would be great if D were present in GCC - thanks Jerry for your initiative, and please keep it up. Andrei
Just see the next message: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00501.html 2010-01-26 Ian Lance Taylor <iant google.com> * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Go frontend maintainer. If you think Google is not pushing Go, think again... -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 28 2010
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de enero a las 09:49 me escribiste:Just see the next message: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00501.html 2010-01-26 Ian Lance Taylor <iant google.com> * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Go frontend maintainer. If you think Google is not pushing Go, think again...
I'd seen that, but my understanding is that Ian is a maintainer of the frontend, not necessarily that Google is pushing Go or even that Google is paying him to spend time on Go. What am I missing?
They are paying him to spend time on Go, at least is a "20% project". -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 28 2010
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de enero a las 12:29 me escribiste:Leandro Lucarella wrote:Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de enero a las 09:49 me escribiste:Just see the next message: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00501.html 2010-01-26 Ian Lance Taylor <iant google.com> * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Go frontend maintainer. If you think Google is not pushing Go, think again...
the frontend, not necessarily that Google is pushing Go or even that Google is paying him to spend time on Go. What am I missing?
They are paying him to spend time on Go, at least is a "20% project".
Aw come on. I knew when I wrote the message I'll leave place for that semantic loophole, but I hoped you wouldn't be taking it so I didn't bother to preempt. Anyway... an employee spending time on a 20% project is a far cry from "Google is pushing Go". Anyone at Google could choose to do anything they please for their 20% projects.
Is not just one persona using his 20% project. There are a lot of Google's employees doing so (and a couple of "high-profile" Google's employees, like Rob Pike and Ken Thompson). Google's doesn't just give away a day of work, you have to present a serious project to spent your 20% and they have to approve it. I counted 10 people google and almost 20 more golang (which, being that the top developers, like Pike and Thompson are golang, one could give for granted that are all Google employees as well) in the CONTRIBUTORS file. That's about 30 people (without counting other potential Google employees using another e-mail). I think that is something... Also, they provide all the infrastructure for the project, all the marking has Google over the places, etc. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 28 2010
How the hell is Go already part of the main GCC distribution? It's only a year old! If I've got this right, GDC won't make it in GCC 4.6, which is going to be released next year. 4.7 will be released in 2012, around April. That's over a year from now. WTF?
Dec 13 2010
On 13/12/10 2:31 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:Must be a very simple language.. and Google probably pulled some strings, or they have someone that worked/collaborated with GCC devs? dunno.. On 12/13/10, Bee<iteronvexor gmail.com> wrote:How the hell is Go already part of the main GCC distribution? It's only a year old! If I've got this right, GDC won't make it in GCC 4.6, which is going to be released next year. 4.7 will be released in 2012, around April. That's over a year from now. WTF?
Is it possibly because Go is more stable than GDC? (I don't know; just speculating...) In any case, I don't think languages are added due to age. Popularity and stability are probably the most important factors.
Jan 02 2011
On 1/2/11 8:10 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:On 13/12/10 2:31 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:Must be a very simple language.. and Google probably pulled some strings, or they have someone that worked/collaborated with GCC devs? dunno.. On 12/13/10, Bee<iteronvexor gmail.com> wrote:How the hell is Go already part of the main GCC distribution? It's only a year old! If I've got this right, GDC won't make it in GCC 4.6, which is going to be released next year. 4.7 will be released in 2012, around April. That's over a year from now. WTF?
Is it possibly because Go is more stable than GDC? (I don't know; just speculating...) In any case, I don't think languages are added due to age. Popularity and stability are probably the most important factors.
The most important factor is having someone on the team pushing for it and understanding the process. Andrei
Jan 02 2011
On 2/01/11 2:43 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:On 1/2/11 8:10 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:On 13/12/10 2:31 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:Must be a very simple language.. and Google probably pulled some strings, or they have someone that worked/collaborated with GCC devs? dunno.. On 12/13/10, Bee<iteronvexor gmail.com> wrote:How the hell is Go already part of the main GCC distribution? It's only a year old! If I've got this right, GDC won't make it in GCC 4.6, which is going to be released next year. 4.7 will be released in 2012, around April. That's over a year from now. WTF?
Is it possibly because Go is more stable than GDC? (I don't know; just speculating...) In any case, I don't think languages are added due to age. Popularity and stability are probably the most important factors.
The most important factor is having someone on the team pushing for it and understanding the process. Andrei
Ok, maybe that as well :-)
Jan 03 2011
Must be a very simple language.. and Google probably pulled some strings, or they have someone that worked/collaborated with GCC devs? dunno.. On 12/13/10, Bee <iteronvexor gmail.com> wrote:How the hell is Go already part of the main GCC distribution? It's only a year old! If I've got this right, GDC won't make it in GCC 4.6, which is going to be released next year. 4.7 will be released in 2012, around April. That's over a year from now. WTF?
Dec 13 2010