Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| patenting compiler technology zjane12@gmail.com (zeng jane) (2010-01-04) |
| Re: patenting compiler technology derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk (Derek M. Jones) (2010-01-05) |
| Re: patenting compiler technology rcmetzger@grandecom.net (rcmetzger) (2010-01-06) |
| Re: patenting compiler technology gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2010-01-11) |
| Re: patenting compiler technology gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2010-01-14) |
| Re: patenting compiler technology jeremy.wright@microfocus.com (Jeremy Wright) (2010-01-14) |
| Re: patenting compiler technology paul.biggar@gmail.com (Paul Biggar) (2010-01-16) |
| From: | Paul Biggar <paul.biggar@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:03:24 -0800 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 10-01-035 |
| Keywords: | legal |
| Posted-Date: | 16 Jan 2010 20:42:01 EST |
[Note, most of this stuff I'm not certain about, they're just nuggets
stored in my head somewhere.]
One effect of patenting algorithms is that they don't make it into
free compilers. I know GCC actively avoids patented algorithms, and
remember reading about one algorithm they would prefer to have used
that they couldn't (I think it was for register allocation).
I believe a problematic patented compiler algorithm is Steengaard's
unification based alias analysis. It was (originally at least) faster
than Andersen's, but patented and so avoided.
A point to consider for compiler patents is that no-one really makes
any money off compilers...
Paul
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:19 PM, zeng jane <zjane12@gmail.com> wrote:
> B Perhaps a very different question than what gets posted but couldnt
> think of a better group than this. I am wondering if there is much
> value in patenting compiler algorithms.My reasons -
--
Paul Biggar
paul.biggar@gmail.com
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.