llvm dev - Apr 2009 - [LLVMdev] Native Static Compilers Compatible with LLVM

Is there anything else besides GNU or any other targets in the future?

My goal is to be able to not have all the binaries coming out to be GPL..

If not, I will have to go back to using C as an intermediate language.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090408/5216ab28/attachment.html>

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Bot Tiger <bottiger1 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Is there anything else besides GNU or any other targets in the future?
>
I don't think so. You could submit patches, though.
> My goal is to be able to not have all the binaries coming out to be GPL..
>
> If not, I will have to go back to using C as an intermediate language.
>
o.O How is that going to help your problem? (Note: LLVM can generate C code.)

-bw

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Bot Tiger <bottiger1 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Is there anything else besides GNU or any other targets in the future?
>
> My goal is to be able to not have all the binaries coming out to be GPL..
You do know that the GNU tools don't cause their output to be GPL'ed,
right? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF
and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html
> If not, I will have to go back to using C as an intermediate language.

Hello Jeffery,

Thank you for the information, but I was already aware of this. I
still have many concerns about GCC from the links you sent yourself:
>"A file is an "Independent Module" if it either requires the
Runtime Library for execution after a Compilation
>Process, or makes use of an interface provided by the Runtime Library, but
is not otherwise based on the
> Runtime Library."
I don't want to be left at the mercy of Richard Stallman to decide
whether or not the work is "not otherwise based on the runtime
library" after the CLISP debacle.
>"You have permission to propagate a work of Target Code formed by
combining the Runtime Library with
>Independent Modules, even if such propagation would otherwise violate the
terms of GPLv3, provided that all
>Target Code was generated by Eligible Compilation Processes. "
>"A Compilation Process is "Eligible" if it is done using GCC,
alone or with other GPL-compatible software, or if
>it is done without using any work based on GCC. For example, using
non-GPL-compatible Software to
>optimize any GCC intermediate representations would not qualify as an
Eligible Compilation Process."
So if I decide to bootstrap a compiler in my own language, it would
not be "Eligible" anymore because it would be linking the GCC
libraries but would not be done with GCC.




On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Bot Tiger <bottiger1 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Is there anything else besides GNU or any other targets in the future?
>>
>> My goal is to be able to not have all the binaries coming out to be
GPL..
>
> You do know that the GNU tools don't cause their output to be
GPL'ed,
> right? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF
> and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html
>
>> If not, I will have to go back to using C as an intermediate language.
>