<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 11:21 AM Jamon Camisso via talk <<a href="mailto:talk@gtalug.org" target="_blank">talk@gtalug.org</a>> wrote:</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div>tl;dr</div><div>I believe GCC supports more traditional languages than LLVM.</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 05/04/2021 09:31, Russell Reiter via talk wrote:<br>
> In that case, in the debate between GCC and clang LLVM, as someone who is<br>
> unable to write an operating system from scratch; who relies on<br>
> documentation<br>
> and the help of like minded people; my vote goes to GCC. It preserves<br>
> support for what<br>
> I see as program necessary artifacts. Plus I see python and other<br>
> interpretative hooks<br>
> into machine code a risk, which must be well balanced, from a SigInt<br>
> perspective.<br>
<br>
1. What's the debate about? Links please.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It sorta started here. With this headline, as the OP frames his libel in a later post.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://gtalug.org/pipermail/talk/2021-March/009994.html">https://gtalug.org/pipermail/talk/2021-March/009994.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>I won't quote the written spurious defamation.<br></div><div><br> </div><div>Then it wasn't forked but prompted this. Which I will quote from my own perspective of Social [Ir]Responsibility.<br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://gtalug.org/pipermail/talk/2021-March/010016.html" target="_blank">https://gtalug.org/pipermail/talk/2021-March/010016.html</a></div><div><br></div><div><pre>"All wins for the side he champions have been provisional. For example,
the GPL has not prevented Linux to be "enclosed"; GCC is in the process of
being supplanted by LLVM. He/we can never rest."</pre></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
2. What do you mean by interpretative hooks? What is the risk model that <br>
you are conflating with with LLVM, and how is it any different than GCC?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For me, as a reader of documentation, it is the risk of losing support structure and ceeding to competitive advantage without the abstraction of critical thinking.</div><div><br></div><div>I call this the IBM DITTO interference effect. Direct Internal Text Transfer Object references can be misleading.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Do you verify all your binaries and compiler and all the intermediate <br>
objects when you build software? As Ken Thompson said, "You can't trust <br>
code that you did not totally create yourself... No amount of <br>
source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using <br>
untrusted code[1]."<br>
<br>
Since the "debate" as presented here is framed in terms of (specious <br>
until proven otherwise) risk, I suggest that focusing on the compiler is <br>
a secondary concern to the main trust issues that must be addressed, <br>
which are formal verification and reproducible builds. Perhaps the <br>
CompCert compiler would be better for your needs[2].<br>
<br>
> In such a case of reconstructionism, I believe GCC is the better<br>
> philosophical option.<br></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Why do you believe it is better? Is using LLVM restricting developers <br>
from writing software that can create social change? Does GCC somehow <br>
better enable developers to engage in critical thinking about the world? <br>
Is any of the above the reason that you use a compiler or write <br>
software? I'd like to understand how either compiler helps or hinders <br>
you, or other developers.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well as a linux user, or LUSER as some of the hate mail directed at me because someone harvested my email from this list linux had once deemed me; I think others like me, who rely on code we cannot write for ourselves ie. the operating system code, we have no choice but to trust those who do.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure I'd actually trust someone who writes computer code and doesn't understand me as a person, to write software which can create social change. I'd rather the social change retain my humanity and keep the hate out of it.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Otherwise the rather innocent lady on this list wouldn't have deemed Richard Stallman a baby killing rape endorser, because someone else alluded to that fact by claiming he was incel.</div><div> <br></div><div><a href="https://gtalug.org/pipermail/talk/2021-April/010120.html">https://gtalug.org/pipermail/talk/2021-April/010120.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>And that's as close to similar inflammatory rhetoric as I'm going to go with this. Except to point out that the list machine placed a carat in front of the first line of my list response to her list post, but not the rest of what I wrote.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
[1] <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/358198.358210" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/358198.358210</a><br>
[2] <a href="https://github.com/AbsInt/CompCert" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/AbsInt/CompCert</a><br>
---<br>
Post to this mailing list <a href="mailto:talk@gtalug.org" target="_blank">talk@gtalug.org</a><br>
Unsubscribe from this mailing list <a href="https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Russell<br></div></div></div></div></div></div>