Toward _FORTIFY_SOURCE Parity Between Clang and GCC

Re:Toward _FORTIFY_SOURCE Parity Between Clang and GCC by jhasse on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @05:49PM (#22313660)

Clang can't copy from GCC due to the different licenses.

GCC can't copy from Clang due to the FSF requiring a copyright assignment.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Toward _FORTIFY_SOURCE Parity Between Clang and GCC by cycloptic on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @10:58PM (#22315218)

Neither of those are significant -- both can be forked if it becomes necessary. GCC has a long history of forks, and half the reason clang is becoming popular is because the downstream vendors didn't like GPL and wanted to make proprietary forks.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Toward _FORTIFY_SOURCE Parity Between Clang and GCC by pjmlp on Thursday February 13, 2020 @02:46AM (#22316047)

And GCC only became popular because UNIX vendors, starting with Sun, decided to sell the UNIX SDK separately from the base OS.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Toward _FORTIFY_SOURCE Parity Between Clang and GCC by romaniitedomum on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @08:55PM (#22314682)

Not literal copying, no, since the two codebases differ substantially, but they can look at the code for what the other has done to see how they did it and they can re-implement it without fear of patent infringement claims.

[ Parent | on HN ]