|patenting compiler technology email@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.org (rcmetzger) (2010-01-06)|
|Re: patenting compiler technology email@example.com (George Neuner) (2010-01-11)|
|Re: patenting compiler technology firstname.lastname@example.org (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2010-01-14)|
|Re: patenting compiler technology email@example.com (Jeremy Wright) (2010-01-14)|
|Re: patenting compiler technology firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul Biggar) (2010-01-16)|
|From:||Paul Biggar <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:03:24 -0800|
|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...
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:19 PM, zeng jane <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 -
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.