Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LLVM 2.8 Released With Feature-Complete Clang C++

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

  • LLVM 2.8 Released With Feature-Complete Clang C++

    Phoronix: LLVM 2.8 Released With Feature-Complete Clang C++

    Chris Lattner has just announced the release of version 2.8 of LLVM, the Low-Level Virtual Machine. LLVM 2.8 is only being released about six months after the release of LLVM 2.7, but it boasts many notable changes, including the Clang compiler offering feature-complete C++ support against the ISO C++ 1998 and 2003 standards...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODY1NA

  • #2
    O... oh... OOOOHHH.... FSCK.... YES!

    Comment


    • #3
      It's perhaps relevant to note that FreeBSD 9-CURRENT has been possible to build with clang/llvm for a little while now. I'm running it on a machine right now, and it seems fine. (This is buildworld, so the entire base system, not just the kernel.)

      Not that there's much C++ in that, but it does suggest that clang is maturing.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm a beginner C++ programmer...
        I'm not quite familiar with the development infrastructure of the open source world.

        Correct me if I'm wrong; Does this LLVM with Clang C++ replace GCC?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by aussiebear View Post
          I'm a beginner C++ programmer...
          I'm not quite familiar with the development infrastructure of the open source world.
          Release early. Release often. That way people can come in early and patch flaws and give input where changes/improvements are needed. This is the so called Bazaar model. More info in this Wikipedia entry of the corresponding book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cat...and_the_Bazaar

          It's basically a free-for-all evolution process that is field tested and known to work better than the proprietary software Cathedral style software development method.

          Correct me if I'm wrong; Does this LLVM with Clang C++ replace GCC?
          There's no centralized development managemant structure in the FLOSS ecosystem; people develop what they want and Linux distributions pick what they think is best. Then the best distro gets the most users, so the most users will get the best software.

          GCC has G++ for C++ but is not completely standards compliant. Not in terms of let's go 'embrace, extent and extinguish' ala Microsoft style, but as in "This is the best we can come up with".

          GCC; the GNU Compiler Collection is older and thus more optimized.

          The succesful projects mostly develop like this:
          1. Make it work
          2. Make it work realy great
          3. Optmization stage

          Welcome

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by aussiebear View Post
            I'm a beginner C++ programmer...
            I'm not quite familiar with the development infrastructure of the open source world.

            Correct me if I'm wrong; Does this LLVM with Clang C++ replace GCC?
            Yes and no.
            You can basically drop it in instead of gcc and it will usually work. It's a bit pickier on some corner cases, and there are some things gcc supports that clang doesn't - both gcc-specific things and standard ones.

            However, it is not meant to replace gcc as the "standard" OSS compiler. It might become more popular than gcc at some future point, but "kill gcc" is not on their TODO list.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
              There's no centralized development managemant structure in the FLOSS ecosystem; people develop what they want and Linux distributions pick what they think is best. Then the best distro gets the most users, so the most users will get the best software.
              How about not having to go through a distro at all? You know, downloading whatever you want from websites? Like Windows? You know, real freedom, not walled gardens.

              Yes, I am just randomly ranting at a lack of software installation standards. Until DEBs work with RPM systems, or RPMs work on DEB systems, or quite simply until ONE package format is made universal, I will continue to complain.

              Also, it's a good way to spread knowledge of Zero Install since it's the only GOOD solution so far it seems.

              Seriously, Michael, when are you going to cover that major problem on Linux and what progress, if any, is being made towards a unified standard? This issue should be PARAMOUNT to anyone interested in getting games onto Linux as a platform. For any and all developers, and users, having one solution for installing and registering software on user's systems across all distros is critical for widespread Linux adoption. No one wants to compile their software against 10 different distros, and users shouldn't want that either. It's a form of DRM in a sense, and is almost like Steam, because if you decided to change distros and you only had an RPM or DEB for a game you bought, you'd be screwed with a pineapple. Seriously, it's ridiculous.

              Comment


              • #8
                Of course you could brew your own soup, no problem (Arch, Gentoo and a 'real' distro like LFS lolz) But standards dictate, so if you want all game developpers to port to a layer and want that layer to keep binary compatibility and keep being developped to stay up-to-date with new libs then they should check out LSB.

                So you can complain to game developpers instead of the ecosystem.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                  How about not having to go through a distro at all? You know, downloading whatever you want from websites? Like Windows? You know, real freedom, not walled gardens.

                  Yes, I am just randomly ranting at a lack of software installation standards. Until DEBs work with RPM systems, or RPMs work on DEB systems, or quite simply until ONE package format is made universal, I will continue to complain.

                  Also, it's a good way to spread knowledge of Zero Install since it's the only GOOD solution so far it seems.

                  Seriously, Michael, when are you going to cover that major problem on Linux and what progress, if any, is being made towards a unified standard? This issue should be PARAMOUNT to anyone interested in getting games onto Linux as a platform. For any and all developers, and users, having one solution for installing and registering software on user's systems across all distros is critical for widespread Linux adoption. No one wants to compile their software against 10 different distros, and users shouldn't want that either. It's a form of DRM in a sense, and is almost like Steam, because if you decided to change distros and you only had an RPM or DEB for a game you bought, you'd be screwed with a pineapple. Seriously, it's ridiculous.
                  You are ridiculous to think that games are what everyone cares about.
                  First off, you are talking about closed source, commercial software, for which there are lots of developers even for linux, and they have absolutely no problem with it. NO PROBLEM. They can make a manual installer, statically link whatever they need, and install if all under /opt/programname/, just like they would under Windows.
                  It's not an issue, it's not even harder. Or they can spend one developer 1 day to fix a deb, rpm, whatever the fuck you want.

                  You speak of compiling their software against 10 different distros, for which you prove you have absolutely no idea what this means.
                  It's not a DRM in the slightest.

                  You can easily make a DEB and RPM that will work with any system, completely without dependencies. Just a quick and easy install-system.
                  Or you can just not use it, doesn't matter. Make a manual installer, make something like steam. You have complete freedom and there is no technical issues that's stopping you in any way.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                    It's a form of DRM in a sense, and is almost like Steam, because if you decided to change distros and you only had an RPM or DEB for a game you bought, you'd be screwed with a pineapple. Seriously, it's ridiculous.
                    Uhm, that's what things like alien are for. It's not absolutely automatic, but it's not that bad.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                      ...Until DEBs work with RPM systems, or RPMs work on DEB systems, or quite simply until ONE package format is made universal, I will continue to complain...

                      Freedom brings something: the gift/curse of being able to be different. It is one of the corner stones of FOSS. If you think we are all going to do the same just because that's more practical then I have bad news for you: we won't. Go to Apple/Windows for one size fits all.

                      Oh and btw, if you don't know what a walletgarden is don't talk about it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MaestroMaus View Post
                        Oh and btw, if you don't know what a walletgarden is don't talk about it.
                        That's a very appropriate misspelling.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                          How about not having to go through a distro at all? You know, downloading whatever you want from websites? Like Windows? You know, real freedom, not walled gardens.
                          Tuomo Valkonen, is that you?

                          Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                          It's a form of DRM in a sense, and is almost like Steam, because if you decided to change distros and you only had an RPM or DEB for a game you bought, you'd be screwed with a pineapple. Seriously, it's ridiculous.
                          Oh come on. No, it's not. DRM is a system to "ensure" that users follow terms of copyright and license. Packaging formats are just that -- they aren't intentionally obfuscated, they don't attempt to ensure only one particular distro can use them (I'm sure Debian would not become up-in-arms and sue if Red Hat ported apt to their distro and made it mesh with their rpm), nothing. Your argument is ridiculous, it's like saying Macintosh programs are like DRM because if you decide to switch to Windows you're screwed. No, not really, it just wasn't designed for anything else. If you want to port it (and the app is open source, analagous to the open package formats), be their guest.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Damn 1-minute edit timeout.

                            Your complaint interests me though, so I'll muse over it a bit. There is indeed such a format that upstream can put on the Internet and allow anyone to download and use -- source code. I know, I know -- it's not user-friendly, some authors do not wish to publish the source, etc. It is the closest thing GNU/Linux has to a universal format though. The problem is that all the distros vary so much in versions and offerings of core libraries, that source is the only universal format that can exist. Since it's source, a configure script can do a very good job of detecting the host system's setup and compiling for it.

                            If you want binary, universal software, then there needs to be a defined standard updating every X amount of time for software including GCC, Python, glibc, Lua, Ruby, GTK+, Qt, Linux, coreutils, Perl -- all the basic foundations of GNU/Linux programming. In other words, a base system. Define this as a standard which all distros should support, convince them to support it, and then you will have a common platform which you can build binary applications on and release for. The Linux Standard Base attempted this, but they aren't doing very well, at least for desktop users.

                            So instead of complaining, set about fixing it! Come up with a rough schematic of this base system, and talk with the distros to ask for their support of it. If they don't agree, you could make your own package for each distro that doesn't want on-board yet, containing this base software. Then you release binaries of your own software and say "This will function on any distro which has MySoftwareBase(TM)." It's quite a bit of work, but it could be done.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There is already such a standard called the LSB; Linux Standard Base.

                              So the problem is not Linux; the problem is the very complaining proprietary developpers themselves.

                              http://www.linuxfoundation.org/colla...workgroups/lsb

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X