Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: Building Linux With LLVM/Clang Excites The Embedded World

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
    Won't change the Linux FOSS nuts who will continue to bash Apple and not realize that without Apple Clang doesn't exist and much of LLVM is still in the research phase.
    Nothing personal - I would bash any other patent troll just the same.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    A lot of people hate and despise Clang simply because some engineers at Apple prototyped the original implementation (which Apple released as Open Source, though they were hardly required to do so; what was that about nothing being contributed back under permissive licenses?), Apple engineers continue to do much (not all) work on it, and Apple hired some of the lead LLVM folks, or because it has a reasonable-for-everyone license instead of the GPLv3. Never mind that Mesa uses it, Google uses it internally, and so on.
    What's wrong with hating Apple ? Everyone is free to hate it. I for one do hate Apple. And there's not a single reason, there are many.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmalzler View Post
    The sanest OS is windows which is proven, because it's the most popular one.
    I hope I don't have to say more...
    the analogy does not fit. windows is chosen without freedom but due to software dependencies.

    gpl has been chosen totally on own decision for new projects. they could have been going bsd license or anything else.

    but i agree that talking about "is better and proven" on that matter is quite useless.
    though, i do not like bsd-like licenses. they are and will be the fall of all free software. they are the license allowing to take and to not give back anything.

    but being "better" is a matter of point of view and nothing proveable.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmalzler View Post
    The sanest OS is windows which is proven, because it's the most popular one.
    You prefer dirt instead of chocolate? It is proven you do, because dirt is much more popular to find.

    Quote Originally Posted by schmalzler View Post
    I hope I don't have to say more...
    Given the direction of mindset, if you have it, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by schmalzler View Post
    And talking of LLVM being the holy CRAP - I hope you are aware of gallium using llvm. Open source graphics drivers (besides intel ones) would not be where they are if there wasn't LLVM.
    Intel drivers are the fastest opensource drivers around, running MILES around AMD and Nouveau.

    Quote Originally Posted by schmalzler View Post
    // edit:
    and my ignore list grows and grows...
    Soon, it overflows and ends up in yer 'utt. xD

    Quote Originally Posted by a user View Post
    windows is chosen without freedom but due to software dependencies.
    Thats incorrect!

    First, research the case of Gary Kildall, perhaps on youtube. Better if you read interview directly from his daughter, because IBM and Microsucks will BS you.
    Second, read about MS agreements with OEM hardware vendors.
    Third, read about MS requirements with OEM sellers (either sell MS-only preinstalled and have discount from ms, or pay full price for windows copy).
    Fourth, the famous "Linux=cancer", and walmart BSing.
    Fifth, read letters about "Embrace, extend, extinguish" directly from MS, essentially how they wanted to destroy Java, but failed. So they reinvented .Net and MONO - its herald-infiltrator for non-ms platforms.

    MS is not choosen due to software dependencies. Its choosen, because its force-preinstalled since first MS-DOS, which in turn was a clone of CP/M, original developer of which was silenced by NDA, Bullsh'd and killed once he decided to talk despite NDA.
    And once they got the monopoly market position by criminal activity, they used other criminal methods to form a dependency knot.

    Which is now falling apart, because and only due to Google. Even destroying Nokia didn't help them, and they stop at nothing for ability to tax the world for their stupid useless blob.
    Last edited by brosis; 03-10-2013 at 09:08 AM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a user View Post
    the analogy does not fit. windows is chosen without freedom but due to software dependencies.

    gpl has been chosen totally on own decision for new projects. they could have been going bsd license or anything else.

    but i agree that talking about "is better and proven" on that matter is quite useless.
    I was about changing "windows" to "christianity", because religion probably fits better when talking about licenses

    And - as we know - GPL has different versions; just think of the recent problems (incompatibilities!) with GPLv2 vs GPLv3. So no freedom: if you want to make software that actually can get used by other projects you need to go GPLv3.

    though, i do not like bsd-like licenses. they are and will be the fall of all free software. they are the license allowing to take and to not give back anything.
    If they chose BSD license it's their problem. If they see that many proprietary projects use their libs but don't give back, they are free to relicense their software. Keep in mind: if the software is good also open source projects will use it - and they are known to give back, aren't they?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    15

    Default Fun with crusader's GPLv3 ...

    Isn't that funny: First, the GNU and Linux community start to push everything INTO GPLv3 and further and now several projects are pushing towards a BSD-/MIT-style licensing model used by the *BSD UNIX community now for a long time? It sound a bit like a paradoxon - or anachronism. The Kindergarten seems to get mature and now many people realize, that it isn't a good idea to push EVERYTHING they want to earn money with out into the public. It is always the healthy balance which makes the essence of life.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Outthere, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
    Furthermore, Vadim Girlin has seriously quistioned attempts to use LLVM in opensource Radeon driver. He has made some neat patches which are drastically improve Unigine-based demos. He credited ability to make them to simplicity of existing code generator and expressed serious doubt if he could do same optimization for LLVM which requires much more learning on how things are working in this monster, etc. In fact this dev admitted that dealing with LLVM took a lot of efforts while result was not great. As far as I understood, LLVM isn't really great when it comes to handling VLIWs and it not just sucks at optimizing VLIW code, it sucks so much that in fact it hardly makes things anyhow better at all. It's whole a crapload of work to make it generate just VALID code, not to mention optimizing it. I.e. it looks like it's easier to tweak existing code generator to adequate state than get LLVM here.

    In fact AMD guys seems to perform very suboptimal strategies in futile attempts to save dev's efforts or so.
    - AMD guys chosen Gallium (to save some dev efforts?). So their driver is a real CPU hog. Intel chosen their own custom implementation. And their driver is *much* better when it comes to CPU usage.
    - AMD guys chosen LLVM (to save some dev efforts again?). And got incredibly slow performance while wasting awfully lot of time to get things running, communicate upstream, fix LLVM for their uncommon arch, push changes here, etc. Without *any* user-visible improvements at all!!! In fact, LLVM backend seems to perform very poorly. It's slow and bugged. And so many time wasted on that crap. Intel on other hand created their own driver. And it performs really well. And they don't have wait for LLVM guys to accept stuff upstream, release new version, blah-blah-blah. It's f....ly amazing how AMD devs could waste such a crapload of time without virtually any user-visible results. So I think Vadim haves a point when he questions why the hell all this LLVM idiocy goes on.

    Maybe AMD guys should really learn some lessons from their competitor? Competitor seems to perform project management much better at this point.
    I think you'r emissing a critical piece of the logic of your own argument. If AMD DIDN'T try out LVM, they would have never know, and now the whole world knows a little bit more that, at least an older version, LLVM isn't the be all and end all of compilation and GCC pretty much is for the time being.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a user View Post
    the analogy does not fit. windows is chosen without freedom but due to software dependencies.

    gpl has been chosen totally on own decision for new projects. they could have been going bsd license or anything else.
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
    2.b) "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."

    This is same as software dependencies.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a user View Post
    the analogy does not fit. windows is chosen without freedom but due to software dependencies.

    gpl has been chosen totally on own decision for new projects. they could have been going bsd license or anything else.
    LOOOL so much irony in this post

    I though that GPL was about being "viral", and forcing "freedom" onto people?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    Intel drivers are the fastest opensource drivers around, running MILES around AMD and Nouveau.
    But still perform worse than AMD open source and Nouveau, because their GPUs suck.

Posting Permissions

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