The point is, these things would have happened no matter what. RMS simply overplayed its leverage, and the magic that kept GCC at the centre of everything for decades broke.

If he could just stop being a zealot for a split second and actually tried to understand the situation, he could have maybe been able to foresee that Apple had the people, resources and will to reimplement a whole compiler infrastructure that could threaten GCC's dominance, but he neglected it (it famously didn't care about Apple's offer to merge LLVM into GCC under the GPL).

Sometimes even the best of intents are shadowed by people's inability to compromise.

RMS didn't overplay anything there. His GPL idea has just become too influential and they started fighting it.

That magic was UNIX vendors started to charge for their compilers, and as we have seen by the BSDs have taken the world of UNIX clones.

Sometimes the hate for a license prevents people to grasp what is ahead of them.

Something like that?

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Sony-Tha...

or that:

https://reviews.llvm.org/D15624

No, something like the PS4 CPU features that don't get upstreamed because they might provide clues how to bipass PS 4 security.

There are some talks from Sony at LLVM meetings regarding those.

That PR from Apple has nothing to do with the bitcode reference I made.

Why do i want a PS4 specific cpu-drm feature in a generic Compiler?

I did not said it was a cpu-drm feature, rather optimizations that could reveal hints about it.

I don't know, maybe other AMD users would like to get them?

You wrote:

>might provide clues how to bipass PS 4 security

>AMD users would like to get them

They got em:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Sony-Tha...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=LLVM-10-...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Sony-LLV...

Why do i want ANY PS4 specific security feautures in the Compiler??

Why bother explaining to those that refuse to understand....