Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LLVM/Clang Replacing GCC In FreeBSD Base

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Clang-on-llvm will ultimately be a big improvement over GCC in a lot of respects (speed, ease-of-use), but it seems like it's currently very immature. Perhaps the BSD developers are doing this in order to get the development resources put towards clang in hopes that it will get the development resources necessary to become a real replacement for GCC. Perhaps it will also help them make their code more portable by having to remove GCC extensions from it.

    Comment


    • #17
      No, it's really the license that interests them. They have some hate of sorts against GPL stuff. I highly doubt this LLVM will offer any real advantages over GCC. Ever.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by RealNC View Post
        No, it's really the license that interests them. They have some hate of sorts against GPL stuff. I highly doubt this LLVM will offer any real advantages over GCC. Ever.
        I'd actually be more inclined to believe that reason than any other. The BSDs have historically tried to replace GPL'd software in their codebase, OpenBSD/NetBSD and the PCC is no exception.

        de Raadt actually commented on it in more constructive vain:

        Originally posted by Theo de Raadt
        But that's never really been the agenda, see. Some people think we hate GNU code. But the thing is we hate large code, and buggy code that upstream does not maintain. That's the real problem... gcc gets about 5-6% slower every release, has new bugs, generates crappy code, and drives us nuts. This is just an attempt to see if something better can show up.

        We're just fighting against an open source monopoly...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by RealNC View Post
          No, it's really the license that interests them. They have some hate of sorts against GPL stuff. I highly doubt this LLVM will offer any real advantages over GCC. Ever.
          Even Linux devs complain about GCC and Theo de Raadt is probably right...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by RealNC View Post
            No, it's really the license that interests them. They have some hate of sorts against GPL stuff. I highly doubt this LLVM will offer any real advantages over GCC. Ever.
            I thought they were doing it because they got tired of their respective bug fixes being rejected by the GCC committee and they didn't want to fork GCC.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by RealNC View Post
              No, it's really the license that interests them. They have some hate of sorts against GPL stuff. I highly doubt this LLVM will offer any real advantages over GCC. Ever.
              Ironically recoding for reasons such as using/not using GPL or Mono or whatever is simply status quo for Open Source in General.

              ...ignoring the potential benefits already stated on the LLVM page, I think most people are excitedly waiting for LLVM + Gallium3d to super charge their games, so it's difficult to argue that there will be no benefits ever ;-)

              [Edit: FWIW, many seem to feel that XOrg is bloated and needs to go, so why not GCC? We should be happy that there are those willing to rethink and rebuild, especially when it gives us better tools and makes those tools accessible to new developers; it future proofs open source]
              Last edited by Craig73; 05-12-2009, 05:25 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Well, right now LLVM seems like just hot air to me. I've seen too many "we will be great in the future!" projects. But if they wish to support it, it's their right of course. I'm not even using any BSD. I dislike its license too much :P

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                  Well, right now LLVM seems like just hot air to me. I've seen too many "we will be great in the future!" projects. But if they wish to support it, it's their right of course. I'm not even using any BSD. I dislike its license too much :P
                  Yeah, licenses that are compliant with licenses used in other open-source OS's than Linux suck.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I've seen a handful of BSD users (and, judging from their rhetoric, probable Ayn Rand fanatics) display outright hatred toward the GPL, but I don't recall ever seeing a major BSD developer do so. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to prefer a permissive license. In particular, GPL is incompatible with lots of licenses that are themselves pretty reasonable. It's also a fairly complex document that is seriously misunderstood (and/or not read in the first place) by a lot of people. Some developers even like the idea of contributing to proprietary products without compensation.

                    Anyway, I'm happy to see any attempt to challenge GCC's dominance, just to help break up the monoculture a bit. A lot of Linux and BSD programs are written in "GNU C", just like a lot of Windows programs are written in "Microsoft C++". I suspect that Clang will mostly "fix" this by implementing GNU extensions so that existing code compiles without changes, though.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                      Yeah, licenses that are compliant with licenses used in other open-source OS's than Linux suck.
                      The reason I dislike it is because it allows for... Apple

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                        The reason I dislike it is because it allows for... Apple
                        So... you're all for freedom, until someone wants to do something with THEIR freedom that YOU don't approve of. Nice.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          Even Linux devs complain about GCC and Theo de Raadt is probably right...
                          This is strange? I have posted links to Linux kernel devs who complain on the Linux kernel code being buggy. And I have posted links to Theo de Raadt also complaining on the Linux kernel code being buggy. And I have posted links when Linus T says the Linux kernel is bloated.

                          As a result, I have been told here, that I FUD and lie when I posted those links, and that Linux devs did not complain on the code being buggy. They complained on something else instead. Maybe the hot weather. And I have been told that Theo de Raadt does not nothing anything and that he is, basically, stupid. And that Linus T is not stupid, but he talked about something else. That I dont understand what I did post.

                          So, when you say that Linux devs and Theo de Raadt complained on GCC, they didnt mean it. The complaints where probably about the latest episode of Seinfeld. So, you can not say GCC is bad, because they talked about Seinfeld.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                            As a result, I have been told here, that I FUD and lie when I posted those links, and that Linux devs did not complain on the code being buggy.
                            That's your problem, you can't expect people to accept facts anymore, especially in the polarized world of internet software discussions.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                              That's your problem, you can't expect people to accept facts anymore, especially in the polarized world of internet software discussions.
                              Yes, but it is a difference between opinions and official benchmarks or research papers or interviews to Linus Torvalds. Official benchmarks are more credible than some random guy writes something random. Why would I believe a random guy? Maybe he is lying? But, official benchmarks are reproducible, and not a lie. So if a benchmark shows that XXX is way slower than YYY, then it is likely true that XXX is slower than YYY on that type of workload.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X