From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a6b:ed17:: with SMTP id n23-v6mr2442666iog.38.1527120749064; Wed, 23 May 2018 17:12:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:445c:: with SMTP id f28-v6mr79097otj.2.1527120748889; Wed, 23 May 2018 17:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!u74-v6no367374itb.0!news-out.google.com!f20-v6ni181itd.0!nntp.google.com!v8-v6no361302itc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 17:12:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.233.194; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.233.194 References: <5c2523c1-9ea5-453c-b80e-9cb0dcd16de0@googlegroups.com> <293cf892-1320-49e6-a25f-a36ea098cd34@googlegroups.com> <59458046-3144-464e-af80-631b80a65930@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: DragonEgg has been revived From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 00:12:29 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:52632 Date: 2018-05-23T17:12:28-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 5:18:20 PM UTC-5, Chris M Moore wrote: > On 23/05/2018 21:30, Dan'l Miller wrote: > > Chris, you are fixated on one case in history. The language of the Run= time Exception v3.1 that they authored is much broader than than one histor= ical motivating case. Just read the Runtime Exception v3.1 yourself and yo= u will see that the word plug-in never appears at all. Now imagine that al= l of LLVM and/or Polly outside of GCC is substantially equivalent to that n= on-GPLed plugin to GCC, but simply starts executing after a GCC compiler fi= nishes executing by reading some sort of IR file written by GCC. Whether i= t was an actual plug-in into an orifice within GCC matters not one whit. W= hat matters is whether a file that was not-Source-Code and not-Target-Code = was written by GCC to feed into a downstream executable. >=20 > Apparently llvm is GPL compatible so dragonegg appears to be legal. But= =20 > what you describe in the para above is what the what the Eligible=20 > Compilation Process stuff was designed to prevent. Oh, so the Runtime Exception actually is designed with legal teeth to preve= nt doing something, eh? I am glad that you in your own mind finally convin= ced yourself that you have disproven the fallacious theorem to be disproven= . Q.E.D. by violent agreement, eh? (See below for the original fallacious= theorem from Simon to be disproven.) > Simon W was saying that FSF gnat/gnat pro can produce non-GPLed=20 > software. No, that is what I have been saying in prior comments in this thread: in= practice, what are actual encumbrances on the executables & DLLs written b= y FSF GNAT? I listed 3. Simon went further than that though to claim that= there exist absolutely no restrictions related to GPLv3 on the executables= and DLLs written by modern GCC. Let us quote him to review: shark8 wrote: > What I would like to see is an Ada compiler that can generate code for=20 > a wide range of targets =E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2without =E2=80=A2any=E2=80=A2 G= PL restrictions on the generated=20 > code=E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2.=20 Simon Wright wrote: > Pretty sure that's called GCC. No, Simon, both Chris Moore and I have both shown that the Eligible Compila= tion Process prohibits certain categories of manipulations of the generated= code, both code-in-the-form-of-true-IR and code-in-the-form-of-machine-cod= e-lifted-back-to-IR-by-e.g.-McSema. We are attacking your ignoring the =E2= =80=9Cany=E2=80=9D there in shark8's laudable expectation/goal. > It seems we can also do it via dragonegg. But dumping the IR=20 > to a file is not allowed. I can't see how that's a restriction on the=20 > target code generated as you asserted. That is correct: you don't see it. McSema, Chris, McSema. Read about the= DARPA-funded lifter that lifts Target Code to LLVM bitcode IR, then read t= he =E2=80=9CTarget Code does not include data in =E2=80=A2any format=E2=80= =A2 that is =E2=80=A6 used for producing a compiler intermediate representa= tion=E2=80=9D and then re-read it 10 times while pondering that opcodes and= their parameters in machine-code are mere data in a particular format. = =E2=80=9CAny format that is =E2=80=A6 used for producing [IR]=E2=80=9D. (Y= ou really need to read less hearsay from 2009 about plug-ins and instead re= ad current-era 2018 material.)