Possible C parsing speedup?

Possible C parsing speedup?

[Turly O'Connor]

Hello there,

I have a question/observation about code in FINISH_STRUCT, c-decl.c,
line 5376 in the egcs-20000508 snapshot.
>  ...
>/* If this structure or union completes the type of any previous
>   variable declaration, lay it out and output its rtl.  */
>
>if (current_binding_level->n_incomplete != 0)
> {
>  tree decl;
>  for (decl=current_binding_level->names; decl; decl=TREE_CHAIN(decl))

This does a linear search though every name in the current binding
if N_INCOMPLETE is zero.  Unfortunately, on our ports, N_INCOMPLETE
in the global binding starts off nonzero after initialisation.
(Because PUSHDECL is called with "VOID", which doesn't have a size.)
From what I can see this would be true of all ports, but it could
be just ours.

Substantial parse speed improvements are possible by fixing this;
I have a trivial fix which maintains a list of incomplete variables
and searches that list rather than the entire binding, but as I
don't really know a lot about this area, I thought it best to turn
the problem over to the gcc SmartFriends (tm).

Have Fun!

--turly

--
"When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading."
                                           --Henny Youngman

Re: Possible C parsing speedup?

[David Young]

Turly,

To my best observations, Apple now distributes gcc (egcs) under  
non-disclosure agreement and via this link:

http://www.publicsource.apple.com/projects/

which states:

Welcome to the Apple open source projects page. This page includes links to  
projects that have been released under the Apple Public Source License. By  
accessing this source, you are affirming that you have read and accepted the  
terms of that license.

A link on that page accesses:

http://www.publicsource.apple.com/projects/darwin/projects.html

which shows egcs as such a project (and hence subject to APSL).

The APSL license states:

"11. Ownership. Apple retains all rights, title and interest in and to the  
Original Code and any Modifications made by or on behalf of Apple ("Apple  
Modifications"), and such Apple Modifications will not be automatically  
subject to this License"

Which to me means that if I participate, then the code is totally under  
Apple's jurisdiction, with no appeal (note the phrase "will not be  
automatically", which means simply that Apple can do whatever it wants with  
it, Apple owns it outright.)

Through various routes I've been told that Apple legal will change this and  
that it is some sort of ... oversight?

Do you know when Apple will be changing this situation? and when Apple will  
not distribute (its version of) egcs under NDA?

I'd like to participate, but ... well ... I'm sort of confused.

Sorry to bother you ... and the most respect intended.

Thanks A Bunch! David Young; VVI-DCS
dyoung@vvi.com

Re: Possible C parsing speedup?

[Stan Shebs]

David Young wrote:
> 
> To my best observations, Apple now distributes gcc (egcs) under
> non-disclosure agreement and via this link:
> 
> http://www.publicsource.apple.com/projects/
> 
> which states:
> 
> Welcome to the Apple open source projects page. This page includes links to
> projects that have been released under the Apple Public Source License. By
> accessing this source, you are affirming that you have read and accepted the
> terms of that license.

I think the source of this confusion is the phrase "includes links to".
The page includes links to APSL-licensed projects, such as the kernel,
but it also includes links to many other projects.  The wording is simply
sloppy, and I've already notified the people responsible for the Darwin
web pages.

> A link on that page accesses:
> 
> http://www.publicsource.apple.com/projects/darwin/projects.html
> 
> which shows egcs as such a project (and hence subject to APSL).

This page doesn't actually state the licensing terms for any of the projects,
but it includes perl, tcl, patch, gcc, gdb, fetchmail, ntp, and many other
programs, so it's safe to assume that there is going to be quite a variety
of licenses.  But the page should say so anyway.

> The APSL license states:
> 
> "11. Ownership. Apple retains all rights, title and interest in and to the
> Original Code and any Modifications made by or on behalf of Apple ("Apple
> Modifications"), and such Apple Modifications will not be automatically
> subject to this License"
> 
> Which to me means that if I participate, then the code is totally under
> Apple's jurisdiction, with no appeal (note the phrase "will not be
> automatically", which means simply that Apple can do whatever it wants with
> it, Apple owns it outright.)

All of the GPLed projects are still GPLed - the actual source files, which
are what really matters here, not a web page - still have the usual FSF
copyright notice and disclaimer.  The Apple-added backend files (such as
gcc/config/rs6000/macosx.h) say "Copyright Apple" with no further qualification.
No rational person would suggest that these will ever be anything but GPL,
but I'll go ahead and add the GPL notice anyhow, just to make things clear.

> Through various routes I've been told that Apple legal will change this and
> that it is some sort of ... oversight?

Definitely an oversight!

> Do you know when Apple will be changing this situation? and when Apple will
> not distribute (its version of) egcs under NDA?
> 
> I'd like to participate, but ... well ... I'm sort of confused.

I poked the right people here, and if I don't get a response soon, I'll go and
stand in their offices.  There shouldn't be any doubt that Apple will handle
GPLed software correctly.

Stan

Re: Possible C parsing speedup?

[Stan Shebs]

Mike Stump wrote:
> 
> > From: David Young <dyoung@vviuh221.vvi.com>
> 
> > To my best observations, Apple now distributes gcc (egcs) under
> > non-disclosure agreement and via this link:
> 
> > http://www.publicsource.apple.com/projects/
> 
> Tell em to fix it.  Tell em, we'll sick the open source community on
> them if they don't.  :-)

The words I used to our folks here was "juicy Slashdot story".... :-)
 
> > Through various routes I've been told that Apple legal will change this and
> > that it is some sort of ... oversight?
> 
> I expect the best way to handle this, would be to find the technical
> people in Apple responsible for the care and feeding of that compiler,
> and inform them, and have them read and understand the GPL, if they
> haven't, and have them go hit their own people.  If they fail to
> correct the situation, we can have the FSF sue them for copyright
> infringement.  The FSF would love to enforce their rights in this
> matter, if Apple desires to not budge.  :-)

Heh, I've already been shown a draft of revised wording, and it looks
much better.

> They need to get right of the NDA for all `open' projects, it is just
> wrong.  The definition of open isn't consistent with NDA.  :-(

The NDA is supposed to apply to the non-open stuff like the Aqua GUI,
not to Darwin, which is all open source.  But Apple ships out CDs with
the stuff all mixed together.  What they need is the thick "book of licenses"
like what WRS and Cygnus and others ship with their software packages.

What's ironic is that part of Apple's developer/user/vendor community
thinks Apple is being dangerously radical in doing any open source at
all, and then there's this crowd that thinks they're not going far
enough!

Stan

Re: Possible C parsing speedup?

[David Edelsohn]

Mike,

	Did you notice that Stan Shebs already had responded to David's
original note and is getting Apple to address the problem?

David

Re: Possible C parsing speedup?

[Mike Stump]

> From: David Young <dyoung@vviuh221.vvi.com>
> Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 18:08:29 -0400
> To: "Turly O'Connor" <turly@apple.com>

> To my best observations, Apple now distributes gcc (egcs) under
> non-disclosure agreement and via this link:

> http://www.publicsource.apple.com/projects/

Tell em to fix it.  Tell em, we'll sick the open source community on
them if they don't.  :-)

> Through various routes I've been told that Apple legal will change this and  
> that it is some sort of ... oversight?

Easy to believe.  We here at WindRiver we have a beta program.  There
is standard wording for the program, to limit our liability (you won't
use the beta in a real product, you'll only use it for testing and so
on), and a rather standard NDA, much like the one Apple has I bet.
When I found the wording, I went over to the manager of the beta
program, and told them that in order to beta my software (the GPLed
software), the wording would have to change.  I wrote up the
replacement text, forwarded it on to them, they sent it on to legal,
and in a week, it was past tense.  It doesn't come about via
maliciousness or anything like that, just out of not knowing, not
reading...

I expect the best way to handle this, would be to find the technical
people in Apple responsible for the care and feeding of that compiler,
and inform them, and have them read and understand the GPL, if they
haven't, and have them go hit their own people.  If they fail to
correct the situation, we can have the FSF sue them for copyright
infringement.  The FSF would love to enforce their rights in this
matter, if Apple desires to not budge.  :-)

They need to get right of the NDA for all `open' projects, it is just
wrong.  The definition of open isn't consistent with NDA.  :-(