Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Talk Of GCC 5.0 To Be Modular, More Like LLVM

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    That's about as relevant as asking how many have MSVC extensions, or ICC extensions, or Solaris extensions, or LLVM extensions. It doesn't matter.
    It does, if we want portable programming, it does.
    Those extensions should be disabled when a project is setup, just like a programmer abstracts platform, this also makes up for portability...

    Regards.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
      That's about as relevant as asking how many have MSVC extensions, or ICC extensions, or Solaris extensions, or LLVM extensions. It doesn't matter.
      Unless you expect every compiler to compensate for the short-coming and quirks of other compilers, then it does matter. You cannot write code specific to compiler X, then complain that compiler Y won't compile your code and treat that as a short-coming of compiler Y.

      read - STANDARDS, PORTABILITY

      I think if LLVM/Clang was never created, then the GCC devs wouldn't be contemplating such improvements so soon (maybe in the next 7-10 years).

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by vertexSymphony View Post
        It does, if we want portable programming, it does.
        Those extensions should be disabled when a project is setup, just like a programmer abstracts platform, this also makes up for portability...

        Regards.
        Whoosh! What's that? It's my point flying by over your heads?

        You are attempting to assign blame, when that doesn't matter. All that matters to the end user is whether or not it works.

        If Joe Blow can't install Magic Eight Ball software package in the latest Fedora release, it doesn't matter why. All Joe knows is that he used to be able to and now can't. Therefore the latest Fedora sucks.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
          Unless you expect every compiler to compensate for the short-coming and quirks of other compilers, then it does matter. You cannot write code specific to compiler X, then complain that compiler Y won't compile your code and treat that as a short-coming of compiler Y.

          read - STANDARDS, PORTABILITY
          You realise that these are 'extensions', as such they are not part of any standard and developers know this when they use them. Like Smitty said, all compiler have extensions, not only that but they also have exclusive extensions. The reason there are extensions is that there's a need/request for their functionality from programmers, this obviously also results in them being used in certain projects. Extensions which prove extremely useable will almost certainly be supported across compilers, and some of them even end up as parts of the standards. In short, writing standard compliant portable code is up to the programmer, not the compiler he/she uses.

          Comment


          • #20
            Why so much focus on LLVM?

            Even on a story which could (and should) have been focused on some free software project, Michael chooses to focus on his favored LLVM. I understand a person having favorite projects, but there needs to be much less reporter's bias here. Something that is almost never mentioned when it comes to stories regarding these and other free software projects are the licensing differences (if any), and the corresponding considerations.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by joshuapurcell View Post
              Even on a story which could (and should) have been focused on some free software project, Michael chooses to focus on his favored LLVM. I understand a person having favorite projects, but there needs to be much less reporter's bias here. Something that is almost never mentioned when it comes to stories regarding these and other free software projects are the licensing differences (if any), and the corresponding considerations.
              I was under the impression that LLVM was free and open source. Has that changed?

              Comment

              Working...
              X