Re:Next steps for BPF support in the GNU toolchain
by ggm on Friday October 17, 2025 @03:05AM
(#45614027)
So clean room the llvm analysis and work from a spec carried out of the room.
It's a really low bar to avoid, tbh. The point is that people have hobbies. And aspects of this work can look like a hobbyist "but i don't want to do it that way" view.
As a consumer of compiler products it doesn't have to matter to me, nor as a user of compilers. It's only observations reading the comments and the article which brought this to mind: llvm is proof by example and is a different kind of open source, it's not a barrier I would struggle to pierce, for my own personal view of code licences.
(I'm old enough to have read the gnu manifesto when it first published btw)
It's a really low bar to avoid, tbh. The point is that people have hobbies. And aspects of this work can look like a hobbyist "but i don't want to do it that way" view.
As a consumer of compiler products it doesn't have to matter to me, nor as a user of compilers. It's only observations reading the comments and the article which brought this to mind: llvm is proof by example and is a different kind of open source, it's not a barrier I would struggle to pierce, for my own personal view of code licences.
(I'm old enough to have read the gnu manifesto when it first published btw)