Re: info

Re: info

[Mike Stump]

> From: "Akbar A." <syedali011@earthlink.net>
> To: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 13:55:40 -0500

> well I am _LEARNING_ a lot of info from gcc and it's source code.

And don't worry, there is a lot left to learn...  :-)

> my question is this, if you give away your source code isn't it possible
> that your competitors could see what you are doing?

Yes.

> i know i am not a political person i am just a programmer, but how does that
> work?

Nicely.

Please see http://www.deja.com/usenet/ , and check out gnu.misc.discuss
over the past 8 or so years.  Look for the terms Cygnus/GPL/Rehat and
so on.  Please see http://www.fsf.org/ , for example,
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#AboutFreeSoftware , After
reading all that, please ask any remaining questions on
gnu.misc.discuss.

info

[fredy.pena]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5 bytes --]

doc?

[-- Attachment #2: Norton AntiVirus Deleted1.txt --]
[-- Type: plain/text, Size: 111 bytes --]

Info

[TKostadinov]

...

ifInterestedIn("C Programming") {
   singIn("groups.yahoo.com/group/prgC/");
}
else {
   doNothing();
}
...
Everybody with interests in C is invited.
Subscribe:  prgC-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Post message:  prgC@yahoogroups.com

With Best Regards
T. J. Kostadinov

info

[alex bohemia]

hi, 
i was looking at the latest update for the gcj
compiler, i was wondering why tell this moment the awt
was not implemented when gnu could use kaffe libs or
manta's libs which already generates machine code??
as far as i know both kaffe and manta are free
software.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
http://greetings.yahoo.com/

Re: info

[Bryce McKinlay]

alex bohemia wrote:

>i was looking at the latest update for the gcj
>compiler, i was wondering why tell this moment the awt
>was not implemented when gnu could use kaffe libs or
>manta's libs which already generates machine code??
>as far as i know both kaffe and manta are free
>software.
>

The kaffe AWT's license is pure-GPL, unlike libgcj/classpath which is 
GPL+linking exception. This means that you can link/run any code with 
libgcj, regardless of the license of that code.

Manta uses the kaffe AWT, however their partial swing implementation was 
written by them and has already been contributed to classpath.

IMO, the "peerless" design of the kaffe AWT is not ideal for libgcj 
anyhow, so we might not want to use it even if there wasn't a license issue.

regards

Bryce.

Re: info

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> writes:

Bryce> IMO, the "peerless" design of the kaffe AWT is not ideal for
Bryce> libgcj anyhow, so we might not want to use it even if there
Bryce> wasn't a license issue.

Yes.  And, anyway, our AWT is actually much more complete than most
people realize.  If you plug in the Classpath Gtk+ peers, the TestAWT
demo program (part of Classpath) pretty much works.  There's still a
lot of debugging to do, though.

Tom

Info

[Marco Mangiante]

Hi friends,
there is a little time in which i can see also c# 
in GNU compiler collection?
Bye

RE: rfc: new libgcc build mechanism

[Donn Terry]

I agree that finding it may be a bit of a challenge, but
it's probably worth it.  (I'll see what I can do about
making that better in another life ;-) ).

The specific case I'm dealing with involves passing the
CC command down to lower levels of make, which in turn
involves doing command substitutions at various levels.
The current partial solution involves having two the-same-but-different
versions of the same string, with different levels of \ quoting
of ` (to allow nesting of `).  Since the problem being addressed
is finding filenames, finding the filename of a temp file 
introduces a recursion.  (All this may be solvable, but it's
far more difficult than it needs to be: $() was created
to allow just that.)  (A recent change broke the currently
working solution.)  (Look at @quoted_cc_set_by_configure@
in configure and Makefile.in, and how to make that work
(reasonably) in the context of SUBDIR_FLAGS_TO_PASS,
when symbolic links are not present.)

Donn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Lipe [ mailto:robertlipe@usa.net ]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 8:13 PM
> To: Donn Terry
> Cc: 'Russ Allbery '; 'autoconf@gnu.org '; 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org '
> Subject: Re: rfc: new libgcc build mechanism
> 
> 
> > the GNU assumption that /bin/sh is the one and only shell
> > leads to a permanent deadlock.  Vendors don't want to break
> > user's existant shell scripts, and there are some corner
> > cases in the Bourne shell that are not completely compatible
> > with a POSIX shell.  Thus, vendors who have taken this route
> > will NEVER (OK... "never say never") replace the Bourne shell
> > (as /bin/sh) with a POSIX shell.  Thus, to the same degree
> 
> This is exactly the problem.  While most (at least most System V's) do
> have a bourne shell that accepts shell functions most vendor /bin/sh
> programs are not the POSIX shell.
> 
> So while most modern systems do have a shell _somewhere_ that 
> meets the
> POSIX standard, the challenge is to find it.  Of course, that could be
> done in an autoconf-like system.
> 
> > Bourne shell.  However, if we ask a different question: can
> > we count on there being a POSIX shell by some name or other
> > (and thus figure out how to find that) then I think there's
> 
> The only two ways that I know of are to look in the documentation that
> the vendor had to file at certification time and to look 
> through a list
> of "well known" locations.
> 
> > no requirement about which directory it lives in (and this
> > is what allows POSIX conformance systems to layer the path
> > such that /bin/sh doesn't change behavior but POSIX conformant
> > applications work).)
> 
> Right.   And it allows it to be "hidden" in a zillion 
> different places.
> Certainly, there is prior art in autoconf roaming the 
> directory tree for
> such things, but it's really icky.
> 
> 
> But my gut tells me that while shell functions are probably "common
> enough" to be used on interesting systems with little pain, 
> the tradoffs
> and paybacks of finding the posix shell will deliver q different value
> equation.
> 
> RJL
> 

info

[Akbar A.]

hello.
well I am _LEARNING_ a lot of info from gcc and it's source code. It seems
that all i have been doing ;)
my question is this, if you give away your source code isn't it possible
that your competitors could see what you are doing?
i know i am not a political person i am just a programmer, but how does that
work?
sorry for being o.t. it just seemed like a lot of you make a living off
opensource code and working with companys that do not offer an ipo.
do people pay you to write software code?
isn't that what the company's employess are for?
like my sister gets paid 44,000 us dollars every year to write manuals for
adobe photoshop 5.0 ("technical writer") _EVEN_ though there is already
awsome one in the online help in most of the works she writes about. she
told me that the people that work with at the company are too arrogant to so
and "look for online help". is this true? i guess what i need is a second
opinion.
But she also does a lot of bank software technical writing as well.
again. sorry for being so o.t
please e-mail me directly.
peace,
akbar A.

Re: info

[Martin v. Loewis]

> my question is this, if you give away your source code isn't it possible
> that your competitors could see what you are doing?

Yes, that's entirely possible. However, if they derive work from GCC,
they have to follow the General Public License (GPL); see COPYING for
details.

> i know i am not a political person i am just a programmer, but how
> does that work?

Well, I'm not sure what your concern is. People contributing to GCC
know that they won't be payed for their contributions per se (although
some still make a living out of it).

> sorry for being o.t. it just seemed like a lot of you make a living off
> opensource code and working with companys that do not offer an ipo.

I personally don't make a living out of free software; I have other
sources of funding.

> do people pay you to write software code?

Some are payed to do so, yes.

> isn't that what the company's employess are for?

Well, companies *do* pay employees to develop GCC; most notably
Cygnus/RedHat and CodeSourcery are such companies. Sometimes the
companies donate code for GCC, sometimes employees work on GCC in
their spare time as well.

> like my sister gets paid 44,000 us dollars every year to write manuals for
> adobe photoshop 5.0 ("technical writer") _EVEN_ though there is already
> awsome one in the online help in most of the works she writes about. she
> told me that the people that work with at the company are too arrogant to so
> and "look for online help". is this true?

I can imagine that there are people that don't know how to read online
help, and need a printed book instead. Likewise, there are people that
*never* read a printed book, and expect online help all the time. And
then there are people that don't read documentation at all, and expect
to understand every program without documentation.

Regards,
Martin

info

[TAXhotpop]

Re: info

[Martin v. Loewis]

This is a mailing list. You'll have to specifically ask what kind of
information you want.

Regards,
Martin

Re: info

[Martin v. Loewis]

This is a mailing list. You'll have to specifically ask what kind of
information you want.

Regards,
Martin

info

[TAXhotpop]