Re: OT - OpenBSD's own compiler
On 08/01/06 22:57, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote: this is the funniest post i've read on misc@ in a while. That was why I put Amen below it... .. sounds like it's already under way with google monitor me six ways from sunday desktop. overt centralization of anything is dangerous, especially chipset manufacturing ;). who would provide this FS? would that organization have root? Since others presumed the same off-list to me: Definitely not of course. It's about a distributed file system. Connections between servers would be SSH like or with something else that already exists. A new filesystem as described itself contains such a huge bunch of serious problems that it's not thinkable to get it working and used by others if such details were setup in a stupid way. whoever provides this database would be under immense pressure from political bodies to let them control it within their country. Did that help with SSH or the end-to-end encryption of IPv6? +++chefren
Re: OT - OpenBSD's own compiler
2006/8/2, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 08/01/06 22:57, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote: this is the funniest post i've read on misc@ in a while. That was why I put Amen below it... .. A little bit of trolling never hurts anyone ;)
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 15:04, Andrew Pinski wrote: I'm becoming slightly more cynical about testing any piece of C code with optimization turned on in GCC. And you think this will be different with anyother compiler, you have to be joking. -- Pinski a GCC developer that actually tries to take pride in the recent development of GCC I never thought or said that. Perhaps it would be more correct for me to replace GCC with any compiler (which is what I really meant to get it). I'm sorry if what I said was a bit touchy.
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 06:32:45PM -0300, Andr??s wrote: We should convince both the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative that Lucent Public License Version 1.02 is not a free software license. Mainly based in Theo's arguments*. This paragraph says it all: And come on it says certain responsibilities. Good god. Are you people dumb to accept such a term in a legal document? It is like your house mortgage can be considered invalid in certain situations and then we own your house. A BSD future for that compiler is not guaranteed, but I think a free software future is. I don't think Lucent would step back. Maybe they will use a copyleft license, but I think that would be much better than now. the plan9 compiler had been released under free license. now try to compile it under unix. then try to make it generate correct code under unix. after that compile fucking openbsd with it. the last (but not least) make an openbsd release with it. you (and your kids) will go greyhair before you get halfway thru it. so can you people fucking shuddup and do smth useful now plz? cu -- paranoic mickey (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
On 08/01/06 16:48, Anton Karpov wrote: This world sucks. We're living in a dark ages, playing with the same technologies as 20 years ago. UNIX is still here. Gcc is still here. C is still here. And it will always be the same. This world needs something really new. Maybe nuclear war is the answer? Oh, no, I'm not smoking crack Nuclear war wouldn't help, leaves only less resources while we need more... I believe focusing on security and correct code the way TheoCo do is a basic requirement for the future. Thinking security can be build in afterwards is nonsense or another way to say rebuild Real shortage of people producing usable code keeps the OpenBSD project in the current state. That state isn't bad at all compared to alternatives (I'm still amazed) but I fully agree this is Turd Polishing, (TP), and Mickey is terribly right with his you (and your kids) will go greyhair before you get halfway thru it concerning an OpenCC. A C-compiler is like a Cathedral, where OpenBSD is more or less a bunch of concatenated sheds. They do keep users dry, they are usable but there is no luxury at all, now and in the foreseeable future, at least not without a new bold plan and usable code. This primitive situation does resemble the dark ages and I believe we should design a path to a more decent/civil situation, bring enlightment and ban stupid beliefs based on hear say. As far as I see it a better compiler is definitely part of a brighter future but better can more economically be reached by enhancements of details (more checks and automatic, proven correct, generation of more parts of code) in GCC than building an own compiler. (An idea that probably might compete for the most stupid idea ever posted here?). As far as I see it the most realistic real big thing to design and build is a world database (file) system. Universal secure access, replication/synchronisation(backup) of data between servers, version control and a world class userinterface for it (momdad compatible like Apple produces for most of it's products). That's a project not the size of a cathedral but definitely comparable an increcibly large and usable central place of a very large city. Amen +++chefren
Re: OT - OpenBSD's own compiler
Original message Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:19:11 +0200 From: chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OpenBSD's own compiler To: misc@openbsd.org On 08/01/06 16:48, Anton Karpov wrote: This world sucks. We're living in a dark ages, playing with the same technologies as 20 years ago. UNIX is still here. Gcc is still here. C is still here. And it will always be the same. This world needs something really new. Maybe nuclear war is the answer? Oh, no, I'm not smoking crack Nuclear war wouldn't help, leaves only less resources while we need more... this is the funniest post i've read on misc@ in a while. anton's suggestion that a cataclysmic event could drive people out of the current groupthink within which they exist is a good point. i can't quite tell if the last sentence is sarcasm or a wilted exclamatory. I believe focusing on security and correct code the way TheoCo do is a basic requirement for the future. Thinking security can be build in afterwards is nonsense or another way to say rebuild the security and correct code that we currently enjoy precipitated from conflict with the status quo, be it FreeBSD, NetBSD or the Roman Empire. Real shortage of people producing usable code keeps the OpenBSD project in the current state. That state isn't bad at all compared to alternatives (I'm still amazed) but I fully agree this is Turd Polishing, (TP), and Mickey is terribly right with his you (and your kids) will go greyhair before you get halfway thru it concerning an OpenCC. A C-compiler is like a Cathedral, where OpenBSD is more or less a bunch of concatenated sheds. They do keep users dry, they are usable but there is no luxury at all, now and in the foreseeable future, at least not without a new bold plan and usable code. mickey is right to be skeptical of such a project and its ability to achieve its goals. is it necessarily wrong to ignore the skepticism of others? next thing i know you're going to tell me the US really did land on the moon! ;) This primitive situation does resemble the dark ages and I believe we should design a path to a more decent/civil situation, bring enlightment and ban stupid beliefs based on hear say. As far as I see it a better compiler is definitely part of a brighter future but better can more economically be reached by enhancements of details (more checks and automatic, proven correct, generation of more parts of code) in GCC than building an own compiler. (An idea that probably might compete for the most stupid idea ever posted here?). even the wildest ideas are only stupid in hindsight. i'm willing to wager a great many people said the same thing of the OpenBSD project from the get go. only now, after a status quo has been manufactured is it clear to all but a small group that the idea was a great one. As far as I see it the most realistic real big thing to design and build is a world database (file) system. Universal secure access, replication/synchronisation(backup) of data between servers, version control and a world class userinterface for it (momdad compatible like Apple produces for most of it's products). sounds like it's already under way with google monitor me six ways from sunday desktop. overt centralization of anything is dangerous, especially chipset manufacturing ;). who would provide this FS? would that organization have root? whoever provides this database would be under immense pressure from political bodies to let them control it within their country. this is not to say it's a bad idea, just that every idea has problems and needs energy to be driven to a satisfactory solution. i think GCC is pretty satisfactory for my purposes, others obviously see it differently. it's clearly not the best time investment from my standpoint so i direct my energy elsewhere. That's a project not the size of a cathedral but definitely comparable an increcibly large and usable central place of a very large city. Amen +++chefren
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
Rico Secada [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:37:46 +0200 From: Rico Secada [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: OpenBSD's own compiler ... I am curently studying the Ada programming language and I read about the different safety demands, which has been made a standard, upon compilers. You're probably reading propaganda from the Ada folks. If you check out the C++ folks, you'll find a different perspective on the design decisions that were made in Ada. Also note that despite the optimistic projections of the Ada folks back in the 80's, Ada is even today far from becoming universally popular. I was wondering, would it be a stupid and bad idea, for the OpenBSD team to develope, an OpenBSD C compiler based upon the OpenBSD security knowledge and internal standards regarding the language? Making it impossible for the compiler to accept and compile programs with all the knows errors which cause problems. The OpenBSDs way of programming has clearly made it clear, what security and quality is all about. ... There is already an OpenBSD C compiler. It's based mostly on Gnu, but with a bit of extra stuff pioneered in part by the OpenBSD folks. The C compiler in OpenBSD is not designed to stop you from writing buggy code. Even if the compiler were as smart as a human being, it couldn't do that, and we don't yet have fast enough hardware to make the compiler anywhere near that smart. The OpenBSD design principals are designed to do what the compiler cannot do - proactively discover fix problems. The hacks in the compiler, library runtime system of OpenBSD are designed to limit contain the effects of several common bugs, and to encourage good coding practice to avoid those bugs. It's not designed to ensure that the resulting code is in fact problem-free or completely secure. For reasons of compatibility (because it's nice to be able to port other people's code) OpenBSD specifically allows you to do things that are known to be bad. In this, OpenBSD is following the well-known C precept: give the programmer enough rope to hang himself. -Marcus Watts
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
Rico Secada [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I read about how Ada is been used in all areas where safety is of great issue, and about how it's being used in rockets, Boing Airplanes and so on because of it's high level of safety. What I understood from it is, that the demand and control upon compilers, rather than on the sourcecode, eliminates the possibility of a lot of errors in the sourcecode, the compiler will not compile the program, and since Ada is being used in a lot places, where lives dependt upon the software, it has to be very safe. I was wondering, would it be a stupid and bad idea, for the OpenBSD team to develope, an OpenBSD C compiler based upon the OpenBSD security knowledge and internal standards regarding the language? Making it impossible for the compiler to accept and compile programs with all the knows errors which cause problems. The OpenBSDs way of programming has clearly made it clear, what security and quality is all about. It's not just the compiler, it's the language. ADA is a heavily-constrained language. C is quite the opposite. ADA, IIRC, does not support interrupts (or other non-determistic events). The PC uses these quite a bit... Steve http://www.fivetrees.com
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 02:12:47PM +0100, Steve Fairhead wrote: Rico Secada [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I read about how Ada is been used in all areas where safety is of great issue, and about how it's being used in rockets, Boing Airplanes and so on because of it's high level of safety. What I understood from it is, that the demand and control upon compilers, rather than on the sourcecode, eliminates the possibility of a lot of errors in the sourcecode, the compiler will not compile the program, and since Ada is being used in a lot places, where lives dependt upon the software, it has to be very safe. I was wondering, would it be a stupid and bad idea, for the OpenBSD team to develope, an OpenBSD C compiler based upon the OpenBSD security knowledge and internal standards regarding the language? yeah we will just drop everything we do now, quit all our jobs, send our families and other sos shopping at the mall in zimbabwe, not make a release for two years and produce the best compiler ever by then of course everybody will stop using openbsd for obvious reasons so we can finally all go drinking beer... cu -- paranoic mickey (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I was wondering, would it be a stupid and bad idea, for the OpenBSD team to develope, an OpenBSD C compiler based upon the OpenBSD security knowledge and internal standards regarding the language? yeah we will just drop everything we do now, quit all our jobs, send our families and other sos shopping at the mall in zimbabwe, not make a release for two years and produce the best compiler ever by then of course everybody will stop using openbsd for obvious reasons so we can finally all go drinking beer... Jeeez, talk about an overreaction to the suggestion. The GNU Compiler Collection has been something most people put up with as opposed to enjoy using. It's not that far fetched of an idea, remember a spin- off project that the OpenBSD guys are responsible that's become the most heavily used SSH code on the planet... Since nobody else has mentioned TeNDRA project, I might as well: http://www.tendra.org/ If you're interested in a BSD compiler collection, start by helping them out, it's been dormant (somewhat) but I'm certain it'd just take a few talented individuals with spare time to really get it going again. Cheers, - - -R. Tyler Ballance Lead Developer, bleep. LLC http://www.bleepsoft.com iD8DBQFEziNDqO6nEJfroRsRAisbAJ9QNotFvmY/WDqscfEqaXC5mkSsCwCfcATB G1z5mX5wkbEz5qPlnzpcQbw= =1Q3E -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:35:29AM -0500, R. Tyler Ballance wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I was wondering, would it be a stupid and bad idea, for the OpenBSD team to develope, an OpenBSD C compiler based upon the OpenBSD security knowledge and internal standards regarding the language? yeah we will just drop everything we do now, quit all our jobs, send our families and other sos shopping at the mall in zimbabwe, not make a release for two years and produce the best compiler ever by then of course everybody will stop using openbsd for obvious reasons so we can finally all go drinking beer... Jeeez, talk about an overreaction to the suggestion. The GNU Compiler Collection has been something most people put up with as opposed to enjoy using. It's not that far fetched of an idea, remember a spin- off project that the OpenBSD guys are responsible that's become the most heavily used SSH code on the planet... Since nobody else has mentioned TeNDRA project, I might as well: http://www.tendra.org/ If you're interested in a BSD compiler collection, start by helping them out, it's been dormant (somewhat) but I'm certain it'd just take a few talented individuals with spare time to really get it going again. just god damn try it. come back when you can compile and run a hello world... cu -- paranoic mickey (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
On 7/31/06, R. Tyler Ballance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeeez, talk about an overreaction to the suggestion. [...] It's not that far fetched of an idea Given the times that this question popped up in the archives, Mickey's reaction isn't too surprising. From the past discussions, I gather that a change of compiler would be a massive job, regardless of the compiler changed to. That said, I'll happily admit that I didn't make a time estimate for the job. [...] remember a spin-off project that the OpenBSD guys are responsible that's become the most heavily used SSH code on the planet... Given the History page on OpenSSH.org [1], licensing terms are likely to have been a factor as well. To quote: OpenSSH is a derivative of the original free ssh 1.2.12 release from Tatu Ylvnen. This version was the last one which was free enough for reuse by our project. [...] but I'm certain it'd just take a few talented individuals with spare time to really get it [TeNDRA] going again. The above does not include the work done on actually obtaining a compiler desired. Be it from scratch or by working on existing code, I recommend to be careful whose spare time you volunteer. Cheers, Rogier References: 1. OpenSSH Project History and Credits http://www.openssh.org/history.html -- If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jul 31, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Rogier Krieger wrote: On 7/31/06, R. Tyler Ballance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeeez, talk about an overreaction to the suggestion. [...] It's not that far fetched of an idea Given the times that this question popped up in the archives, Mickey's reaction isn't too surprising. From the past discussions, I gather that a change of compiler would be a massive job, regardless of the compiler changed to. That said, I'll happily admit that I didn't make a time estimate for the job. I don't have any doubts whatsoever about that, GCC has been around almost as long as I have, and I'd still say it's got a lot of work to be done (when compared to proprietary compilers, but it's price tag and open source code still makes it my choice). OpenSSH is a derivative of the original free ssh 1.2.12 release from Tatu Ylvnen. This version was the last one which was free enough for reuse by our project. Good point, I did forget that OpenSSH wasn't exactly from scratch, as of now there aren't really any decent alternatives to pick up appropriately licensed source code from to start an OpenCC project from (for example). [...] but I'm certain it'd just take a few talented individuals with spare time to really get it [TeNDRA] going again. The above does not include the work done on actually obtaining a compiler desired. Be it from scratch or by working on existing code, I recommend to be careful whose spare time you volunteer. You're the second person to make this allusion that I am some PHB spending other people's time, I was merely making the argument that it only takes a few talented individuals to get a snowball project going that would be capable of picking up speed as more people contributed to it. While it would be a massive undertaking, I still think a project like this would carry merit, and would definitely carry my support (I am absolutely no good with grammars so my support would be more evangelical ;)). Then again, given the amount of time that it would take to make a new _decent_ compiler, I'd say efforts would be best spent bribing some of those Plan9 guys into releasing their compilers under a BSD license ;) Cheers, - -R. Tyler Ballance iD8DBQFEzm0YqO6nEJfroRsRAtpbAJ98XWuKKaHCDKPvCTYnY08zIZs++wCfb3Mf DtQUljINsTRodDBp518CbLI= =E3jD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:35:29AM -0500, R. Tyler Ballance wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I was wondering, would it be a stupid and bad idea, for the OpenBSD team to develope, an OpenBSD C compiler based upon the OpenBSD security knowledge and internal standards regarding the language? yeah we will just drop everything we do now, quit all our jobs, send our families and other sos shopping at the mall in zimbabwe, not make a release for two years and produce the best compiler ever by then of course everybody will stop using openbsd for obvious reasons so we can finally all go drinking beer... Jeeez, talk about an overreaction to the suggestion. The GNU Compiler Collection has been something most people put up with as opposed to enjoy using. It's not that far fetched of an idea, remember a spin- Once we wondered about a bug in our Links web browser and we traced it down to a bug in gcc - the preprocessing was generating improper output (empty) when it should have generated something else. Existed only in particular version of GCC that was used at that time. Having a correctness-based approach and bugfree program doesn't help when the compiler is broken and introduces bugs into the code. CL off project that the OpenBSD guys are responsible that's become the most heavily used SSH code on the planet... Since nobody else has mentioned TeNDRA project, I might as well: http://www.tendra.org/ If you're interested in a BSD compiler collection, start by helping them out, it's been dormant (somewhat) but I'm certain it'd just take a few talented individuals with spare time to really get it going again. Cheers, - - -R. Tyler Ballance Lead Developer, bleep. LLC http://www.bleepsoft.com iD8DBQFEziNDqO6nEJfroRsRAisbAJ9QNotFvmY/WDqscfEqaXC5mkSsCwCfcATB G1z5mX5wkbEz5qPlnzpcQbw= =1Q3E -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
On 7/31/06, Andris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We should convince both the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative that Lucent Public License Version 1.02 is not a free software license. Mainly based in Theo's arguments*. * [9fans] The new ridiculous license http://9fans.net/archive/2003/06/270 i don't think 2003 qualifies as new anymore.
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
Section 4 (commercial distribution) with its beautiful certain responsibilities is still there. Section 7 (export control) is still there. On 7/31/06, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/31/06, AndrC)s [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We should convince both the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative that Lucent Public License Version 1.02 is not a free software license. Mainly based in Theo's arguments*. * [9fans] The new ridiculous license http://9fans.net/archive/2003/06/270 i don't think 2003 qualifies as new anymore. -- AndrC)s Delfino
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
On 7/31/06, David Leung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not a regular GCC user, but my recent experience with it has been quite bitter. Recently I came across a piece of code that only produces correct results with optimization turned on. Yeah, that's not an uncommon result of code that doesn't meet the synchronization requirements of pthreads. My colleague has, by accident, compiled a piece of code we are working on without any optimization, and we notice that the result produced by the unoptimized code is incorrect. As I trace through the code, I found a simple synchronization problem with an external variable being written to by the a number of threads concurrently. Right, so the code caused undefined behavior and the compiler happened to do the desired thing only when optimization was on. Did you not see that same effect with other compilers on that code? ... I'm becoming slightly more cynical about testing any piece of C code with optimization turned on in GCC. What are you testing for? Correct operation of the resulting binary or correctness of the code itself? Note that other cases of undefined behavior (say, violation of C's aliasing rules) are likely to behave 'correctly' when optimization is off. Philip Guenther
OpenBSD's own compiler
Hi I am curently studying the Ada programming language and I read about the different safety demands, which has been made a standard, upon compilers. I read about how Ada is been used in all areas where safety is of great issue, and about how it's being used in rockets, Boing Airplanes and so on because of it's high level of safety. What I understood from it is, that the demand and control upon compilers, rather than on the sourcecode, eliminates the possibility of a lot of errors in the sourcecode, the compiler will not compile the program, and since Ada is being used in a lot places, where lives dependt upon the software, it has to be very safe. I was wondering, would it be a stupid and bad idea, for the OpenBSD team to develope, an OpenBSD C compiler based upon the OpenBSD security knowledge and internal standards regarding the language? Making it impossible for the compiler to accept and compile programs with all the knows errors which cause problems. The OpenBSDs way of programming has clearly made it clear, what security and quality is all about. Now I know all the rules about, no talk, just develope, and whats else is here. I am not a developer. This is not an atempt to do anything other than ask a question. Seeing how OpenBSD's OpenSSH has been implemented world widely, the thought about a compiler made me wanna ask the question and learn from the answers. If you are one of those persons who just need to let of steam or just needs an excuse to flame someone, or if you in general think that my question is about the most stupid question you have ever read, then please, do something else with your time, don't answer this email, just ignore it - especially if you aren't a developer yourself. And if cant help yourself, just mail me off-list. The best and kind reagards. Rico
Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
An OpenBSD C compiler from scratch, AFAIK, is not an idea of the project. Today, I read about Theo's interest in Plan 9' C compiler. But, there are license problems, so, that is not possible; at least, right now. A source tree in Ada, I think, would be safer. But maybe it is not as portable/well-known as C. I'm not a developer nor an Ada programmer. Greetings On 7/30/06, Rico Secada [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I am curently studying the Ada programming language and I read about the different safety demands, which has been made a standard, upon compilers. I read about how Ada is been used in all areas where safety is of great issue, and about how it's being used in rockets, Boing Airplanes and so on because of it's high level of safety. What I understood from it is, that the demand and control upon compilers, rather than on the sourcecode, eliminates the possibility of a lot of errors in the sourcecode, the compiler will not compile the program, and since Ada is being used in a lot places, where lives dependt upon the software, it has to be very safe. I was wondering, would it be a stupid and bad idea, for the OpenBSD team to develope, an OpenBSD C compiler based upon the OpenBSD security knowledge and internal standards regarding the language? Making it impossible for the compiler to accept and compile programs with all the knows errors which cause problems. The OpenBSDs way of programming has clearly made it clear, what security and quality is all about. Now I know all the rules about, no talk, just develope, and whats else is here. I am not a developer. This is not an atempt to do anything other than ask a question. Seeing how OpenBSD's OpenSSH has been implemented world widely, the thought about a compiler made me wanna ask the question and learn from the answers. If you are one of those persons who just need to let of steam or just needs an excuse to flame someone, or if you in general think that my question is about the most stupid question you have ever read, then please, do something else with your time, don't answer this email, just ignore it - especially if you aren't a developer yourself. And if cant help yourself, just mail me off-list. The best and kind reagards. Rico -- AndrC)s Delfino
