Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LLVM's Clang Compiler Nearly C++11 Feature Complete

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

  • LLVM's Clang Compiler Nearly C++11 Feature Complete

    Phoronix: LLVM's Clang Compiler Nearly C++11 Feature Complete

    LLVM's Clang C/C++ compiler front-end is nearing feature completion for supporting C++11, the latest C++ ISO standard...

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

  • #2
    That's nice but GCC is doing a much better job at C++11 (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/cxx0x_status.html)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by stikonas View Post
      That's nice but GCC is doing a much better job at C++11 (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/cxx0x_status.html)
      Well, looks like they are both almost finished in their next versions. Too bad clang haven't implemented inherited constructors yet though. It is one the features I am really looking forward to using.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by stikonas View Post
        That's nice but GCC is doing a much better job at C++11 (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/cxx0x_status.html)
        Three "No" and two "N/A" vs two "No". I'd say it's neck and neck, with GCC having a slight lead. Honestly, they're both almost done. Now it's just up to who <strike>can do</strike> does a better job at what is done.
        Last edited by Nobu; 02-22-2013, 06:41 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Clang/LLVM is kicking so much ass.

          FreeBSD and Apple have completely dumped the crap GNU GCC compiler leaving only Linux as the last platform still stuck with GCC.

          Just look at the amazing explosion in tools and compiler/language tools and innovation Clang/LLVM have enabled shows just what a massive cancer the GPL and it's shit ideology crippled open source compiler development.

          Comment


          • #6
            That doesnt sound wrong...for GCC or LLVM/Clang. Would you describe them as "a tumour or growth that is malignant (can spread)"?

            Comment


            • #7
              When it comes to C++11 concurrency functionality, the latest SVN code also handles sequence points.
              Are you implying that previous Clang releases didn't handle sequence points, a fundamental concept in C since its inception? C++11 added threading support to the C++11 spec rather than leaving them as implementation details and removed the term "sequence point" in favor of clearer terminology and some refinements to ensure well-defined behavior with the new features, but your summary (based, I'm assuming, off of a naive reading or the Clang C++11 page) makes it sound like they just added sequence points to the compiler. Which is ludicrous, it would have never functioned properly for even many simple programs without them. The "sequence points" item on the Clang/GCC C++11 pages refer to the proposal for redefining and clarifying how expression sequencing works with threads, not adding sequence points to the language.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BeardedGNUFreak View Post
                Clang/LLVM is kicking so much ass.

                FreeBSD and Apple have completely dumped the crap GNU GCC compiler leaving only Linux as the last platform still stuck with GCC.

                Just look at the amazing explosion in tools and compiler/language tools and innovation Clang/LLVM have enabled shows just what a massive cancer the GPL and it's shit ideology crippled open source compiler development.
                I have to agree with your position on the GPL, the ideology has trampled software freedom. While the GPL might have had good intentions it has turned into an evil worst than proprietary software.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
                  I have to agree with your position on the GPL, the ideology has trampled software freedom. While the GPL might have had good intentions it has turned into an evil worst than proprietary software.
                  Okay, I will bite. Name one, just one example of something that has happened in the real world that would make what you just said make any sense?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BeardedGNUFreak View Post
                    Clang/LLVM is kicking so much ass.

                    FreeBSD and Apple have completely dumped the crap GNU GCC compiler leaving only Linux as the last platform still stuck with GCC.

                    Just look at the amazing explosion in tools and compiler/language tools and innovation Clang/LLVM have enabled shows just what a massive cancer the GPL and it's shit ideology crippled open source compiler development.

                    You can understand that many extensions for LLVM are under GPL (so LLVM will never be complete) right? You can understand that the next GCC will be like LLVM, binary compatible and under GPL right? I think you can also understand that any one that codes for free does that under GPL, because people they don't want to be used for money and they want something back from there code. How is it right BSD programmers (pros) to want something back and simple people (hobbyists) they don't have the same right? As i see it, BSD is to take other people's work for your self.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Just ignore artivision

                      Originally posted by artivision View Post
                      You can understand that many extensions for LLVM are under GPL (so LLVM will never be complete) right.
                      As a longtime member of the GCC community, I can assure everyone that the above is simply horsesh*t.

                      The definition of the extensions is obviously not under GPL.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by artivision View Post
                        You can understand that many extensions for LLVM are under GPL (so LLVM will never be complete) right? You can understand that the next GCC will be like LLVM, binary compatible and under GPL right?
                        One of the big pushes towards LLVM vs GCC is a MUCH cleaner codebase. One that doesnt have what? 20 years? of 'cruft' weird codepaths that no ones really sure what they do anymore or how they ever worked. They ARE working on making the codebase much cleaner but more modular but the devs themselves have even said: if they wanted to get as much modularity as LLVM/Clang has.....page 1, from scratch, rewrite with zero code from the old base.

                        If you're wondering 'why do you WANT that much modularity?' Simple: IDE's. Gone are the days of pumping c++ into text files with vim / emacs / nano and then you run a straight gcc -o and then test. The name of the game is now IDE's with code parsing, completion, and any other wacky awesome feature to make the programmers life easier as he develops.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BeardedGNUFreak View Post
                          Clang/LLVM is kicking so much ass.

                          FreeBSD and Apple have completely dumped the crap GNU GCC compiler leaving only Linux as the last platform still stuck with GCC.

                          Just look at the amazing explosion in tools and compiler/language tools and innovation Clang/LLVM have enabled shows just what a massive cancer the GPL and it's shit ideology crippled open source compiler development.
                          Debian Linux is ensuring LLVM/Clang 3.x is current and works towards making all projects build completely with it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by krainick View Post
                            As a longtime member of the GCC community, I can assure everyone that the above is simply horsesh*t.

                            The definition of the extensions is obviously not under GPL.

                            LLVM is a portable compiler suite. Uses front-ends to understand various languages as sources and compiles them to a virtual machine target, then uses back-ends to dynamic final-compile data, targeting a specific instruction set. This portability will come to all survive compiler suites on the future, including a GPL suit like a GCC6 (metaphor). Now if i want to write an extension for LLVM, i will do it under GPL in order to use it with a future GPL portable compiler suite. For example if i have a new software rasterizer that can use GPU shaders and CPUs at the same time, i will make it GPL even if it is for LLVM.

                            As for BSD, its a fair exchange. A developer gives openly a main program that is a gain for every one, wile hobbyists they contribute sub-programs that is a gain for everyone and mainly for the developer. So if BSD developers they want to gain something back, i don't understand why hobbyists must not have the same right. That is what GPL offers to us and i don't understand the hate. BSD also has a gap (the compatibility gap). So a future Apple-LLVM may be not compatible with the BSD LLVM, or they can make closed source the entire project. At the end any hate comments are ridiculous not because of hate but because of the inevitable. No closed source developer will go more than BSD and no hobbyist will abandon GPL. So comment that is not going to change not even one person, is better not to be written.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X