from the Generating-Considerable-Controversy? dept.
GCC 9.4 Compiler Released With 190+ Bug Fixes
GCC 9.4 is now available with this wide range of "fixes for regressions and serious bugs". No new features are provided by GCC 9.4 but for anything new you'll want to move up to the current GCC 11 series for the latest processor support, shiny new C/C++ features, and other improvements.
GCC 12 is the next feature release in development for debut next year.
GCC To No Longer Require Copyright Assignment To The Free Software Foundation
GCC has long required copyright assignment to the FSF for any patches and that's been an issue for some. Especially these days with the FSF coming under fire and even some talking of possible forks to the GNU Compiler Collection or being able to move this open-source compiler further away from the FSF, the steering committee decided to no longer require the controversial copyright assignment.
That copyright assignment (and the GPLv2 to GPLv3 change) blocked Apple from contributing to GCC a decade ago. The copyright assignment has also blocked other contributions to GCC in the past by other organizations.
GCC will continue to be developed under the GPLv3 but no longer require the FSF copyright assignment. Instead, contributors can use the Developer Certificate of Origin with a Signed-off-by tag in their Git messages.
Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
[*] (Because there's bound to be at least one person wondering) GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection:
The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Ada, Go, and D, as well as libraries for these languages (libstdc++,...). GCC was originally written as the compiler for the GNU operating system. The GNU system was developed to be 100% free software, free in the sense that it respects the user's freedom.
(Score: 3, Troll) by RedGreen on Wednesday June 02 2021, @12:15AM (3 children)
still more that happy to use the work developed by the FSF and Stallman.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @12:23AM
Not totally true. Gcc since 1999 has been the egcs branch of gcc that was developed by non-FSF developers because FSF was being a bitch about maintaining control over development of its stagnant compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @05:00AM
See also Mozule and JavaScript.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Rich on Thursday June 03 2021, @10:58AM
This might be a move in the spirit of the free software movement, which even Stallman could approve (but may not, because his little fiefdom is involved).
When the FSF gets subverted, it can release a GPL4 that is extended to include special needs of minorities, securities for investors, protection of creators, secrecy of innovators, and other such funny ideas. This will apply to the "any later version" much existing GPL stuff is licensed under. But if you have many copyright owners and some parts are not unter "any later version", the power grab will fail. The other part of the puzzle would therefore be to drop the "later" clause.
On the other hand, there could be evil intentions, in that because of obscure legal precedents, with more than a single owner, the GPL becomes less enforceable. Or one potential large contributor has stated that they need to maintain copyrights. Or they're just lazy with the paperwork....
I don't know. We'll have to watch.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @12:41AM (3 children)
I thought it was supposed to be Developer Certificate if Original Gender, so that the blue hairs could audit to ensure that the required number of trannies were working on the project.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @01:05AM (2 children)
Thank you for your comment all the way from the land where men are clearly men, women are clearly women and sheep are nearly women.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @03:56AM (1 child)
a cat is fine too
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @02:05PM
Such a lovely thread, and then you just *had* to ruin things by bringing up pussy...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Frosty Piss on Wednesday June 02 2021, @01:15AM (6 children)
The FSF has become passè what with RMS back at the helm. No one cares what the Man Who Needs a Shower has to say anymore. The old man is past his “sell by” date.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @01:45AM (5 children)
RMS is not available for purchase, as he is Licensed under the GPL 3.0. You may download and use him in any way you wish. You can pay for (emotional) support, as many people have done after dealing with him.
If you fork Stallman, you must distribute the revised Stallman on the same terms as the original.
Fork Stallman.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @01:51AM (4 children)
I don't share the SJW antipathy toward Stallman - but your post is still funny!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @02:18PM (2 children)
If Jesus creeped on women like RMS allegedly does, I might still worship Him; however, I'd take more care to avoid interpreting his admonitions like 'Love thy Neighbor' literally.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @04:23PM
RMS creeps on everyone equally.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 03 2021, @03:20PM
So what if RMS isn't the best looking guy out there? He isn't some gay looking model, he's an autist. You SJWs talk about "diversity" nonstop, but when someone different comes along (like an autist) you're always the first to grab torches and pitchforks to burn the heretic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 03 2021, @12:12PM
Everyone who mentions SJW gets marked troll by SJW.
You'd fight to not live among nazis but somehow we tolerate marxists and give them a pass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @01:19AM (5 children)
Back in the simpler days, the most complex software were OS, DBMS, and mega-big software packages (CAD, audio/video suites, game engines, etc.)
Today, it's compilers (because CPU/GPUs became so esoteric) and web browsers (no need for explanation).
True, some gargantuan software packages may be larger and more unwieldy, but they are just piled higher and spread wider - they are more complicated than complex.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Wednesday June 02 2021, @01:48AM (4 children)
Disagree.
Most of those 'most complex' endeavors of old, are still extremely complex and are still worthy of academic study.
Compilers were always on that list.
And browsers haven't gotten more complex than operating systems. Browsers ARE operating systems. :) They haven't supplanted the list of most complex, but they have definitely joined it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @02:49AM
Disagree with this, bitch.
I was, like, trying to sound profound and old and stuff. Bug the fuck off.
Can't an AC get a break here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @01:03PM (2 children)
They're not nearly as complex as things that talk directly to the hardware. Browsers are just very large clusterfucks combining existing libraries, the browser itself is just a UI tying those libraries together. This is why browser makers are helpless when it comes to bringing resource usage under control.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Wednesday June 02 2021, @06:23PM (1 child)
I think you over estimate the complexity of talking to hardware.
They're pretty much virtual machines providing all the same services as an operating system. (storage, networking, display, process isolation, program execution, scheduling, resource locking, security...)
I'd rather write a device driver.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 03 2021, @07:04AM
The repercussion of bugs in lower level code are higher*. As for VM --- they're not VMs (although some elements in them implement VMs, for things like scripting), they're an abstraction layer. When browsers need to implement support for client hardware directly as well as ensuring those various components work coherently in tandem they'd be on the same level as an OS kernel, not before then.
* A bug in the browser might result in the user losing a session or malware getting in, while something as simple as an off by 1 error in a calc in low level code could fuck up your HDD and everything on it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @03:38AM
Apple doesn't "contribute" to free software. They use it. Then modify it heavily and in private and don't contribute back until they're ready to release their next public update. By then the changes they've made are so deep and extensive it can't be merged back into the original source. It might as well be a fork. These "contributions" don't help anyone but the lawyers.
I don't blame them for their approach, and they're free to do what makes good business sense for them. They maintain the legal definitions of free software use.
But don't ever hold them up as the poster child for the spirit of free software contributions.