Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Why LLVM/Clang Was Ported To A Super Computer

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,474

    Default Why LLVM/Clang Was Ported To A Super Computer

    Phoronix: Why LLVM/Clang Was Ported To A Super Computer

    Most often whenever writing about LLVM and its Clang C/C++ compiler front-end on Phoronix, within the forums is a flurry of comments from those in support of and against this modular compiler infrastructure. Some are against LLVM/Clang simply because its BSD-licensed and sponsored by Apple rather than the GPLv3-licensed GCC backed by the FSF. Others, meanwhile, see LLVM as presenting unique advantages and benefits. What reasons would a leading US national laboratory have for deploying LLVM/Clang to their leading super-computer? Here's an explanation from them...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    I was under the impression LLVM's auto-vectorization was still much inferior to GCC's, which loses to ICC (by a much smaller margin though).

    An up-to-date look at this would be nice, but I suppose it goes out of Phoronix's targets.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    I guess you forgot to mention in the article that some people also prefer LLVM over GCC purely because of its BSD license rather than GCC's GPLv3 license. It goes both ways.

    The license issue itself is so polarizing that I wonder if {the people who consider LLVM and GCC purely for their ability to get stuff done for them} are in the minority.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    58

    Default Contrib?

    It's great they're doing all that work, but are they contributing it back or just bragging? It is BSD after-all and that's not implicit.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snadrus View Post
    It's great they're doing all that work, but are they contributing it back or just bragging? It is BSD after-all and that's not implicit.
    Of course they were invited to the LLVM Developers' Conference just to go over a few vague slides about technology they wrote just so they could go "but haha fuckers it's all ours!"

    Naturally, the GPL would have solved this problem by forcing them to proactively upstream all their work, including copyright assignments to the FSF, thereby allowing the code to actually be usefully used by anyone outside of the laboratory working on their own personal Blue Gene/Q supercomputers at home.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    The license issue itself is so polarizing that I wonder if {the people who consider LLVM and GCC purely for their ability to get stuff done for them} are in the minority.
    I don't think that's true at all, except among the population of people who post on message boards.

    Most people just use the most convenient compiler for their circumstances and don't give a lot of thought to anything else.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    I don't think that's true at all, except among the population of people who post on message boards.

    Most people just use the most convenient compiler for their circumstances and don't give a lot of thought to anything else.
    I tend to agree. Another high-quality Free compiler can only be a good thing.

    What worries me is not LLVM's license, but the attempt to obsolete GCC, a bandwagon some journalists are happily jumping on.

    GCC and Clang coexisting is a great thing! Best thing, really. But if Clang ends up killing GCC, that would be a catastrophe for free software everywhere. And anyone wishing for such an outcome is dangerous for our community.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    Of course they were invited to the LLVM Developers' Conference just to go over a few vague slides about technology they wrote just so they could go "but haha fuckers it's all ours!"

    Naturally, the GPL would have solved this problem by forcing them to proactively upstream all their work, including copyright assignments to the FSF, thereby allowing the code to actually be usefully used by anyone outside of the laboratory working on their own personal Blue Gene/Q supercomputers at home.
    With GPL you're allowed to make private modified versions, without any obligation to divulge the modifications as long as the modified software is not distributed to anyone else ... with GPL would be the same thing, so pleae stop trolling
    I don't ask you to read the license, but at least read the faq you know ... http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....cePostedPublic
    Last edited by vertexSymphony; 11-17-2012 at 08:26 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snadrus View Post
    It's great they're doing all that work, but are they contributing it back or just bragging? It is BSD after-all and that's not implicit.
    Yes, Hal is owner of several aspects of the code in LLVM and Clang. Spend some time on the Mailing lists and discover the collaboration levels on it. The lack of useless politics that ran rampant on GCC for years is non-existent on LLVM/Clang mailing lists.

    A lot of improvements by Cray and Argonne Lab are rolling in and will continue to roll in with LLVM/Clang 3.3. AMD GPGPU R600 will be one of the newest sections under Targets.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    I tend to agree. Another high-quality Free compiler can only be a good thing.

    What worries me is not LLVM's license, but the attempt to obsolete GCC, a bandwagon some journalists are happily jumping on.

    GCC and Clang coexisting is a great thing! Best thing, really. But if Clang ends up killing GCC, that would be a catastrophe for free software everywhere. And anyone wishing for such an outcome is dangerous for our community.
    You clearly don't understand the scope and legal situation within the LLVM/Clang community. Ask Debian. They're quite thrilled with the progress of having 2 completely open source Compiler solutions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •