Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora To Remain Monogamist Towards GCC

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    Mac is mostly Objetive C where Linux is GNU/ISO C and C++
    Wrong. Darwin, the underlying OS, is C and C++.

    Originally posted by drag View Post
    The LLVM/Clang/etc that Apple uses will never be the same LLVM/Clang/etc that everybody else uses.
    Can you prove that or is that just some made-up stuff?

    Originally posted by drag View Post
    After all then why the hell would Apple want to run away from GPLv3 code? It's all about the patents that Apple controls, of course.
    Apache License 2 has the same patent grants as GPLv3. Apple releases lots of software under Apache License.
    Before you make such assumptions, try to think, please. Apple binaries are signed for security reasons. GPLv3 would require Apple to hand over the sign keys (aka “TIVO clause”).

    Originally posted by drag View Post
    Because the packager is not in a position to know what is best for the software.
    The packager may package software for a platform the upstream developer has not even access to. Clang could produce better code for that platform. If the upstream developer has irrational hatred against Clang, he may never “bless” Clang although it would be better.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
      Wrong. Darwin, the underlying OS, is C and C++.


      Can you prove that or is that just some made-up stuff?


      Apache License 2 has the same patent grants as GPLv3. Apple releases lots of software under Apache License.
      Before you make such assumptions, try to think, please. Apple binaries are signed for security reasons. GPLv3 would require Apple to hand over the sign keys (aka “TIVO clause”).


      The packager may package software for a platform the upstream developer has not even access to. Clang could produce better code for that platform. If the upstream developer has irrational hatred against Clang, he may never “bless” Clang although it would be better.
      1.) i said MOSTLY meaning Cocoa which is the part of the OS aPI that normally devs will use to develop apps
      2.) well is logical they do since for example why waste binary space on AMD specifics or Exynos ARM specifics, if you only have access to Intel and A15 hardware? and making memory i don't recall those exists in macport-clang at all, so yes they mostly use their own branch of clang and prlly since they hardware is so static prolly they have many Next BSD/Mach/intel/A15 aggresive optimizations lying around that prolly no one else would use(maybe hackintosh ppl??), etc.
      3.) well licence flame wars, all you say is true and fake at the same time, lets lawyer deal with it
      4.) well clang only support x86 missing the previous topics and some ARM archs so is very unlikely a dev won't have access to that plataform besides packagers making changes downstream is a formula for a disaster, no decent distro should allow non upstream changes in their main distro packages especially in something so delicate as a compiler.

      sure some very weird and specific software could run better using clang right now but the maintenance burden don't worth it but like i said no one is forbidden it in an external repo (ppa like or epel like, etc), so you are free to recompile fedora using clang if you want you just can't add them to the main repo

      Comment

      Working...
      X