Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: ARM Adopts Using The LLVM/Clang Compiler

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,353

    Default ARM Adopts Using The LLVM/Clang Compiler

    Phoronix: ARM Adopts Using The LLVM/Clang Compiler

    ARM Compiler 6 is beginning to use the LLVM/Clang compiler...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY2MDI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: ARM Adopts Using The LLVM/Clang Compiler

    ARM Compiler 6 is beginning to use the LLVM/Clang compiler...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY2MDI
    Logged on to all sorts of good news today. This should go a very long way to providing the infrastructure the ARM world needs.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    336

    Default

    No mention the license used was the BSD license?

    http://semiaccurate.com/2014/04/08/a...r-6-clangllvm/

    Proving again why BSD > GPL; never would have been able to do this with a GPL style license.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    Logged on to all sorts of good news today. This should go a very long way to providing the infrastructure the ARM world needs.
    They said something like 25 years.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    409

    Default

    Dear Apple,

    Thanks for the financial backing, development and huge recent dump of ARM based code. We'll default to your direction.

    Sincerely,

    ARM

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
    Dear Apple,

    Thanks for the financial backing, development and huge recent dump of ARM based code. We'll default to your direction.

    Sincerely,

    ARM
    Do you ever wonder if the 64 bit architecture was Apples idea? You think about it they got a huge lead on the rest of the industry, makes you wonder how.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamerk2 View Post
    No mention the license used was the BSD license?

    http://semiaccurate.com/2014/04/08/a...r-6-clangllvm/

    Proving again why BSD > GPL; never would have been able to do this with a GPL style license.
    Exactly. Also the LLVM internal design is better thanks to BSD. Competent paid developers were allowed to participate. With GPL the problem is that you can't easily hire anyone to do the job. Mostly just amateurs.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caligula View Post
    Exactly. Also the LLVM internal design is better thanks to BSD. Competent paid developers were allowed to participate. With GPL the problem is that you can't easily hire anyone to do the job. Mostly just amateurs.
    Oh yeah, and the license must also be the reason why BSD operating systems are far more successful and technically superior and more popular than Linux and have more developers contributing than on Linux...

    Seriously, stop trolling. 2/10 for making me reply

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    5

    Default BSD is better license than GPL for sure for closed source....

    Quote Originally Posted by gamerk2 View Post
    No mention the license used was the BSD license?

    http://semiaccurate.com/2014/04/08/a...r-6-clangllvm/

    Proving again why BSD > GPL; never would have been able to do this with a GPL style license.
    And next time you can click here to buy your favorite LLVM/CLANG version for ARM the article writes about - the source for it probably will not be given out...

    Are you writing about BSD vs. GPL in the context of open source licenses? If so it sounds funny least to say,

    T.

Posting Permissions

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