From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <200304080605.h3865DL17673@augusta.math.psu.edu> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] fast compilers In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:50:27 MDT." <200304071850.h37IoR5u006587@cvs.openbsd.org> From: Dan Cross Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 02:05:13 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8be182e6-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > To: rog@vitanuova.com > Cc: 9fans@cse.psu.edu ^^^^^ > Subject: Re: [9fans] fast compilers > From: Theo de Raadt > > and since it is gpl, we cannot, and will not switch to it. > > i have tried to make this clear to various people, in an attempt to > convince them that a bigger picture view would be good. if it was bsd > licensed, everyone could use it, and we would have some competition > for gcc. we would try to improve it -- we would try to switch to it. > > but if it is gpl, we will not. > > > mirtchov@cpsc.ucalgary.ca wrote: > > > to quote: > > [...] > > > > > gcc 3.2.1 is TWICE AS SLOW as gcc 2.95, and the more recent development > > [...] > > > I wish the plan9 compiler was 100% free. It's blazingly fast. > > > > the inferno version of the plan 9 C compiler, which is almost > > identical to the plan 9 version, is distributed under the same > > license as gcc. > > > > cheers, > > rog. > > 9fans isn't appropriate for discussions related to the licensing of software components and their inclusions in other operating systems. Please, keep this stuff off-list. (In this case, Rog should have known better.) I should note, however, that building compilers akin to Plan 9's C compiler shouldn't really be too hard; why hasn't anyone done it yet? With the oodles of BSD programmers out there, I'd have thought it'd have been done years ago. - Dan C.