Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD Jumps Quickly On LLVM/Clang 3.2

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

  • FreeBSD Jumps Quickly On LLVM/Clang 3.2

    Phoronix: FreeBSD Jumps Quickly On LLVM/Clang 3.2

    While just released on Friday, FreeBSD has already pulled LLVM/Clang 3.2 into its "head" repository and will be pushing it into the FreeBSD 9/Stable series in the weeks ahead...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI2MDU

  • #2
    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
    Why? Isn't clang shittier than gcc?? These bsd guys really enjoy having worse performance than linux.
    The small performance difference between GCC and Clang is made up for in other areas such as debugging.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
      Why? Isn't clang shittier than gcc?? These bsd guys really enjoy having worse performance than linux.
      "Shittier" is a pretty vague and worthless term for a compiler. The phrase youre looking for is "Doesnt clang produce slower binaries than gcc?" In which case....mainline clang vs mainline gcc? Sure, yes it does. But *BSD has been stuck at mainline clang vs gcc 4.3 I think, and at THAT level I'm pretty sure clang matches or beats gcc.

      Personally I'm looking forward to LLVM just because its a new, cleaner, code base, better debugging capacities (I know gcc is working on getting better but we'll see), more modular (see above), and integrates a lot better into IDE's because of the modularity of it.

      If Apple wants to take mainline LLVM and add on some optimizations for closed source...fine, thats their right via the license. But I really don't think that Apple will take mainline LLVM and have some drastic differences vs mainline and their version it-- it adds more work for them to maintain those diff's and to make sure they stay current, usable and valid.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        The small performance difference between GCC and Clang is made up for in other areas such as debugging.
        It's obvious the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd reasons they are using Clang is because of the BSD license.

        And there's nothing wrong with that. Remember all the fuss GPL guys put up about Linus using a proprietary code repository software rather than svn/cvs? That turned out pretty well in the long run.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
          It's obvious the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd reasons they are using Clang is because of the BSD license.

          And there's nothing wrong with that. Remember all the fuss GPL guys put up about Linus using a proprietary code repository software rather than svn/cvs? That turned out pretty well in the long run.
          Clang is not under the BSD license. It is under the UoI-NCSA license, which is BSD-style, but different:

          http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/vi...SA?view=markup

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
            It's obvious the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd reasons they are using Clang is because of the BSD license.
            That maybe the case for inclusion into the distro but that is not the primary reasons for the actual end users of Clang who just want a good modern compiler. Users of FreeBSD are less concerned about licensing issues then they are of the technology.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              That maybe the case for inclusion into the distro but that is not the primary reasons for the actual end users of Clang who just want a good modern compiler. Users of FreeBSD are less concerned about licensing issues then they are of the technology.
              Users may or may not be, but the FreeBSD foundation certainly isn't putting technology above licencing. That is why they were stuck with GCC 4.2.1 to begin with.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                Users may or may not be, but the FreeBSD foundation certainly isn't putting technology above licencing. That is why they were stuck with GCC 4.2.1 to begin with.
                They were stuck because their efforts were being put into more worthy efforts.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                  The small performance difference between GCC and Clang is made up for in other areas such as debugging.
                  Oh deanjo...

                  Yet when people apply the same logic to open vs. closed drivers, you go berserk... B)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                    Oh deanjo...

                    Yet when people apply the same logic to open vs. closed drivers, you go berserk... B)
                    The difference is that the performance difference is not small at all when dealing with video drivers. We are not talking about a 200-500% performance difference with compilers and in this case the alternative does have more useful features.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      The difference is that the performance difference is not small at all when dealing with video drivers.
                      This surely depends on the video driver.

                      The performance difference with r300g is smaller than the difference between Clang and GCC, for example. And r600g is at about 60% on recent cards, sometimes 90%.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                        This surely depends on the video driver.

                        The performance difference with r300g is smaller than the difference between Clang and GCC, for example. And r600g is at about 60% on recent cards, sometimes 90%.
                        And how is the performance difference on cards that are not out of production? How is the openCL performance? What is the power consumption and cpu use when watching HD video? I could go on but you should be already able to see the vast difference.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                          They were stuck because their efforts were being put into more worthy efforts.
                          What are you talking about? They were stuck because of not accepting GPLv3, a purely licenced based decision. Being GPL-free has long been one of FreeBSD's stated goals, again a licence-based goal.

                          I'm not saying this is in any way wrong of them, they have their philosophy/ideology regarding software licencing which differs from that of FSF and it's as simple as that. But your attempts at presenting FreeBSD as making choices on a technical level rather than that of licence-philosophy falls rather flat.

                          Oh, and merry christmas everyone!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                            And how is the performance difference on cards that are not out of production?
                            HD6000 are still in production. 60-90% is not 1/5 of the performance like you claim.

                            How is the openCL performance? What is the power consumption and cpu use when watching HD video? I could go on but you should be already able to see the vast difference.
                            These are features, and yes, the open drivers are missing some features. Just like Clang is missing many crucial features like OpenMP. And binary drivers are missing some features too.

                            But we were talking about performance

                            I'm happy to have a decent free C++ compiler as an alternative, and I think that we all profit from that. But it's hard to deny that the major push behind Clang is licence-based.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                              HD6000 are still in production. 60-90% is not 1/5 of the performance like you claim.
                              Lay down the eggnog and read

                              http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...t2012chr&num=1

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X