Context: <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/629259/" rel="nofollow">http://lwn.net/Articles/629259/</a><p>There was a recent controversy over whether gcc would export its syntax trees for the purpose of enabling EMACS to catch up with IDEs on code analysis and refactoring. Richard Stallman opposed this, because of fears that this would lead to companies attaching gcc's frontends to proprietary backends, proposing instead to make gcc output a limited subset of the syntax tree. The controversy left the gcc-emacs integration project in a tough spot from which it has not progressed.<p>The linked post refers to some work integrating emacs with LLVM, which is gcc's chief competitor. Stallman appears to think that this is an effort to displace gcc. Which it sort of is, but one that's necessary given that gcc is failing to provide essential functionality.
Again? This is really getting ridiculous, gud stands for Grand <i></i>Unified<i></i> Debugger, it makes no sense to me to refuse that it support other debuggers that many people would find useful.<p>The way I see it, RMS is concerned that if people have the option of using LLDB over GDB, it will weaken the position/status of GNU, which is why he'd rather promote GNU tools over other free alternatives. However, isn't he replacing one "problem" with another? If developers cannot use the tools of their choice in Emacs, they will abandon it in favor of other development environments.<p>To me, the best way to promote copyleft software is to not shelter it to the point that it becomes its own little isolated garden. Instead, it should strive to be a very useful citizen of the greater FLOSS ecosystem that people choose to use because of its technical qualities.
Not knowing any context about this, I first thought hackers(crackers) were trying to corrupt GNU packages. But of course RMS was using hyperbolic metaphors when he said "attack" to mean he thought LLVM guys were conspiring to sabotage GNU packages....I guess.