June 22, 2010
Robert Jacques Wrote:

> The main issue (as I understand it) is adding windows style structured exception handling to LLVM.

C++ compiles for me. Or are there some other issues?
June 22, 2010
Kagamin, el 22 de junio a las 07:01 me escribiste:
> Robert Jacques Wrote:
> 
> > The main issue (as I understand it) is adding windows style structured exception handling to LLVM.
> 
> C++ compiles for me. Or are there some other issues?

LDC compiles too, but it doesn't support exceptions. I guess is the same with C++.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'It's not you, it's me....'? You're giving me the 'It's not you, it's me'
routine? I invented 'It's not you, it's me.' Nobody tells me it's them,
not me. If it's anybody, it's me.
	-- George Constanza
June 22, 2010
Hello Robert,

> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:55:48 -0400, BCS <none@anon.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hello Leandro,
>> 
>>> Nick Sabalausky, el 21 de junio a las 13:40 me escribiste:
>>> 
>>>> "Eldar Insafutdinov" <e.insafutdinov@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hvo49k$1uk3$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>> 
>>>>> In the end, Windows is the most popular
>>>>> OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some
>>>>> time for
>>>>> it.
>>>> I wish someone could convince LLVM of that...
>>>> 
>>> Maybe it should be the other way around. Someone who cares about
>>> Windows should give some love to LLVM =)
>>> 
>> How hard are the problems? I have zero experience in LLVM and very
>> little in compiler work but if the problems could be attacked without
>> to  much ramp-up I'd be interested in looking into them.
>> 
> The main issue (as I understand it) is adding windows style structured
> exception handling to LLVM.
> 

After a little digging it seems that LLVM legally CAN'T add SEH as MS has it under patent. I'm still digging to figure out how it could be patented without making SEH an irrelevant technology.

-- 
... <IXOYE><



June 22, 2010
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:47:14 -0400, BCS <none@anon.com> wrote:

> Hello Robert,
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:55:48 -0400, BCS <none@anon.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Leandro,
>>>
>>>> Nick Sabalausky, el 21 de junio a las 13:40 me escribiste:
>>>>
>>>>> "Eldar Insafutdinov" <e.insafutdinov@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hvo49k$1uk3$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the end, Windows is the most popular
>>>>>> OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some
>>>>>> time for
>>>>>> it.
>>>>> I wish someone could convince LLVM of that...
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe it should be the other way around. Someone who cares about
>>>> Windows should give some love to LLVM =)
>>>>
>>> How hard are the problems? I have zero experience in LLVM and very
>>> little in compiler work but if the problems could be attacked without
>>> to  much ramp-up I'd be interested in looking into them.
>>>
>> The main issue (as I understand it) is adding windows style structured
>> exception handling to LLVM.
>>
>
> After a little digging it seems that LLVM legally CAN'T add SEH as MS has it under patent. I'm still digging to figure out how it could be patented without making SEH an irrelevant technology.
>

The patent seems to be Borlands's:
USPTO patent #5,628,016 Patent held by Borland on compiler support for SEH.
From a Wine wiki page: http://wiki.winehq.org/CompilerExceptionSupport

It does seem to expire on June 15, 2014, though and I assume DigitalMars has a license, so a LLVM fork is not unreasonable.
June 22, 2010
"Robert Jacques" <sandford@jhu.edu> wrote in message news:op.vepzxsdx26stm6@sandford...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:47:14 -0400, BCS <none@anon.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Robert,
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:55:48 -0400, BCS <none@anon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The main issue (as I understand it) is adding windows style structured
>>> exception handling to LLVM.
>>>
>>
>> After a little digging it seems that LLVM legally CAN'T add SEH as MS has it under patent. I'm still digging to figure out how it could be patented without making SEH an irrelevant technology.
>>
>
> The patent seems to be Borlands's:
> USPTO patent #5,628,016 Patent held by Borland on compiler support for
> SEH.
> From a Wine wiki page: http://wiki.winehq.org/CompilerExceptionSupport
>
> It does seem to expire on June 15, 2014, though and I assume DigitalMars has a license, so a LLVM fork is not unreasonable.

Seems a weak reason. A programmer that's worried about infringing software patents can't write anything more useful than "Hello World". I'm seriously not convinced at all that it's even possible to write useful code that doesn't technically infringe on some software patent. As a programmer, either you accept the fact that what you do is inevitably going to trample software patents, or you just simply don't be a programmer. That's all there is.


June 22, 2010
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> Seems a weak reason. A programmer that's worried about infringing software patents can't write anything more useful than "Hello World". I'm seriously not convinced at all that it's even possible to write useful code that doesn't technically infringe on some software patent. As a programmer, either you accept the fact that what you do is inevitably going to trample software patents, or you just simply don't be a programmer. That's all there is.

The world's not nearly that black and white.  There's a huge difference in infringment in an app you write for yourself vs an app that's very public.

LLVM is somewhat closer to the latter end of the spectrum.

I agree that excess paranoia isn't warranted, but neither is willful ignorance.
June 22, 2010
Robert Jacques:
> The patent seems to be Borlands's:
> USPTO patent #5,628,016 Patent held by Borland on compiler support for SEH.
>  From a Wine wiki page: http://wiki.winehq.org/CompilerExceptionSupport
> 
> It does seem to expire on June 15, 2014, though and I assume DigitalMars has a license, so a LLVM fork is not unreasonable.

On Windows G++ supports exceptions. I have two questions:
1) Do you know how they do this? Do they have a license? If they have a licence why don't LLVM people too have it?
2) Why isn't LLVM just copying that part of the GCC code? If a true copy is not possible, why aren't copying the code with enough cosmetic changes? (A good amount of time ago I did believe that the main purpose of the Open Source idea was to copy source code between projects, to avoid reinventing things. I was so wrong.)

Bye,
bearophile
June 23, 2010
== Quote from Brad Roberts (braddr@slice-2.puremagic.com)'s article
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > Seems a weak reason. A programmer that's worried about infringing software patents can't write anything more useful than "Hello World". I'm seriously not convinced at all that it's even possible to write useful code that doesn't technically infringe on some software patent. As a programmer, either you accept the fact that what you do is inevitably going to trample software patents, or you just simply don't be a programmer. That's all there is.
> The world's not nearly that black and white.  There's a huge difference in
> infringment in an app you write for yourself vs an app that's very public.
> LLVM is somewhat closer to the latter end of the spectrum.
> I agree that excess paranoia isn't warranted, but neither is willful
> ignorance.

If we're really lucky, Bilski Vs. Kappos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski) will send all the software patent attorneys to the poorhouse next week and we can just start trampling freely.
June 23, 2010
bearophile, el 22 de junio a las 19:25 me escribiste:
> Robert Jacques:
> > The patent seems to be Borlands's:
> > USPTO patent #5,628,016 Patent held by Borland on compiler support for SEH.
> >  From a Wine wiki page: http://wiki.winehq.org/CompilerExceptionSupport
> > 
> > It does seem to expire on June 15, 2014, though and I assume DigitalMars has a license, so a LLVM fork is not unreasonable.
> 
> On Windows G++ supports exceptions. I have two questions:
> 1) Do you know how they do this? Do they have a license? If they have
> a licence why don't LLVM people too have it?
> 2) Why isn't LLVM just copying that part of the GCC code? If a true
> copy is not possible, why aren't copying the code with enough cosmetic
> changes? (A good amount of time ago I did believe that the main
> purpose of the Open Source idea was to copy source code between
> projects, to avoid reinventing things. I was so wrong.)

I don't know about 1), but about 2), one of the main goals of LLVM was to have a less restrictive license than GPL, so copying GPL code is not an option for them.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HACIA NEUQUEN: EL JUEVES SALDRA CARAVANA CON PERROS
DESDE CAPITAL EN APOYO AL CACHORRO CONDENADO A MUERTE
	-- Crónica TV
June 23, 2010
Leandro Lucarella:
> but about 2), one of the main goals of LLVM was
> to have a less restrictive license than GPL, so copying GPL code is not
> an option for them.

Can't you copy it by something like 90%, enough to be able to call it different code (that's what I was referring with 'cosmetic changes')?

Bye,
bearophile
1 2 3 4 5 6
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home