LLVM/Clang vs. GCC On The Intel Atom With Linux

[phoronix]

Phoronix: LLVM/Clang vs. GCC On The Intel Atom With Linux

For those curious how LLVM/Clang compares against the GCC compiler on low-end x86 hardware, here's some numbers...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE5OTM

[dimko]

nothing exciting

Interesting article, none the less. Thanks Michael!

[crazycheese]

Any proprietary Apple-only LLVM extensions so far?

[dimko]

Any proprietary Apple-only LLVM extensions so far?

I doubt it will ever happen. I am no lawyer, does BSD license permit changing of once derivate works into different license? If anything, can this software be "converted" into GPL3?

[Goderic]

I doubt it will ever happen. I am no lawyer, does BSD license permit changing of once derivate works into different license? If anything, can this software be "converted" into GPL3?

Yes, BSD basically allows everything, the only thing you have to do is include the copyright notice. (That's what all these GPL vs BSD here discussions are about)

[artivision]

Yes, BSD basically allows everything, the only thing you have to do is include the copyright notice. (That's what all these GPL vs BSD here discussions are about)

Not at all. When you have some BSD code inside your GPL program, this code remains BSD. So even if someone take that part of your source, he isn't forced to open his source (that's the discussion here), and also the next release of a program can be closed. So basically BSD doesn't protect the free programmer and can't be converted to GPL. All the above doesn't mean that BSD isn't useful. Actually the best thing is LLVM to remain BSD, so that companies will compile their C++ programs and games with LLVM and be Instruction_Set free. Another good thing with BSD is that there are not patents. So if you implement the LLVM technology in the next portable GCC (5 for example), with your own code, then it will be a GPL GCC5_vm, with LLVM binary compatibility.

[Goderic]

Not at all. When you have some BSD code inside your GPL program, this code remains BSD. So even if someone take that part of your source, he isn't forced to open his source (that's the discussion here), and also the next release of a program can be closed. So basically BSD doesn't protect the free programmer and can't be converted to GPL. All the above doesn't mean that BSD isn't useful. Actually the best thing is LLVM to remain BSD, so that companies will compile their C++ programs and games with LLVM and be Instruction_Set free. Another good thing with BSD is that there are not patents. So if you implement the LLVM technology in the next portable GCC (5 for example), with your own code, then it will be a GPL GCC5_vm, with LLVM binary compatibility.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say but converting BSD into GPL is possible. Of course the original code stays BSD, (that's one of the few things BSD doesn't allow: it doesn't allow you to force the original writer of the code to stop releasing it under the BSD license) but all changes you make can be released under GPL. So if you fork a BSD licensed program and release all the changes under GPL you basically converted it into GPL. You can of course change it also into a proprietary license.

I have no idea what you're saying about BSD having no patents.

[bridgman]

I didn't think you could actually *re-license* BSD code, but IIRC you can *include* BSD-licensed code (at least the 2-clause and 3-clause versions) in GPL-licensed software and you can include BSD-licensed code in proprietary software.

The "no patents" comment by artivision probably meant "no explicit patent grants", which is correct.

[F i L]

I'm surprised LLVM/Clang 3.1 didn't make it into Ubuntu 12.10... this is why I use and love Arch Linux rolling release.

BTW, LLVM 3.1 added auto-vectorization to the code generator, which would probably help a lot with the C-Ray performance. That's just a guess though.

[smitty3268]

I didn't think you could actually *re-license* BSD code, but IIRC you can *include* BSD-licensed code (at least the 2-clause and 3-clause versions) in GPL-licensed software and you can include BSD-licensed code in proprietary software.

Yeah, the code obviously remains under the BSD no matter where you move it - or else you wouldn't still have to follow the rule about the copyright notice.

But for all practical purposes, it is "swallowed up" by the GPL or proprietary licenses, because you can never get anything back out. Any changes to the code could be GPL or proprietary, and therefore not allowed to be copied back into the original upstream BSD codebase, and of course you already have the original code so whatever license that is under really makes no difference.