Sony Proposes Changing LLVM Clang Default To C++20 Mode

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Sony Proposes Changing LLVM Clang Default To C++20 Mode

Sony engineers are proposing that the LLVM Clang compiler changes its default C++ mode from C++17 to C++20. This coincides with Sony planning to soon upgrade their PlayStation 5 compiler downstream to C++20 by default...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Sony-LLVM-Clang-CXX20-Default

[brad0]

Michael being pathetic as usual.

[coder]

Michael being pathetic as usual.

Huh?

I found the article informative, in that I was unaware Clang still had significant hurdles for C++20 conformance.

[recyclebin]

Michael being pathetic as usual.

wtf is your problem?

[coder]

Funny thing is: all Sony really needs is for Clang to be C++20 conformant. PS5 developers use whatever compiler is in the SDK Sony provides them. Sony can just change the default in its own branch, for the version it ships to them.

I think their proposal to change the default of upstream is really intended to force the community to help find bugs and generally improve the quality of its C++20 support. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what default upstream is using.

[mrg666]

I love to see, massively global products are now based on open source instead of proprietary developments. I am wondering if GPL was not so restrictive, Sony would have used Linux and GNU? I think the decision is mostly based on the less-restrictive license of LLVM and BSD. I wish they could revise GPL to make it really free in the sense of freedom for all people and purposes. Does GNU realize that GPL is actually restricting the freedom?

[coder]

I love to see, massively global products are now based on open source instead of proprietary developments.

I'm pretty sure they were using some FreeBSD variant, all the way back in the PS3 era.

I wish they could revise GPL

To make it the same as BSD license? We already have BSD license, for people who want that. Why would we need another?

to make it really free in the sense of freedom for all people and purposes. Does GNU realize that GPL is actually restricting the freedom?

GPL prioritizes the freedom of end users over the freedom of developers. BSD is the opposite. There's no formula that gives you both.

GPL happened because Stallman got frustrated by some bugs or limitations in a laser printer they had at MIT (back when laser printers were super expensive) and he couldn't get the source code or tools needed to go into the firmware and fix it. So, he set about to create a license where he'd have the ability to make DIY repairs and modifications to any so-licensed software that he used.

The main reason Linux is so successful is that its use of GPL and lack of a kernel ABI strongly encourages people using it to upstream their changes. Without it, Linux wouldn't have nearly as many features or the level of hardware support it currently enjoys, because too many vendors would just maintain out-of-tree drivers or custom forks. What you're asking for is impossible. We wouldn't get the Linux we have, without GPL like it is.

Also, it's no accident Linux rules the cloud. Cloud operators want full source code to the OS and all its drivers. They want to be able to build, modify, debug, audit, and tune it themselves. Linux gives them that in a way no other OS would. There's no proprietary, closed-source driver nonsense (not that Nvidia didn't try, but eventually lost that battle).

Finally, your request is really puzzling. If you believe GPL is what's keeping Sony from embracing Linux, then they'd use a non-GPL Linux in exactly the same way they're now using BSD, which is to say that it'd be just as much of a closed black box. So, it would change nothing for you, as an end user. Maybe PS5 game devs would benefit slightly. But, the only reason you even know what OS it's running is because someone told you. Not because it's of any practical significance to you. And that would continue to be the case, were they to use a non-GPL Linux.

[Nth_man]

I'm pretty sure they were using some FreeBSD variant, all the way back in the PS3 era.


To make it the same as BSD license? We already have BSD license, for people who want that. Why would we need another?


GPL prioritizes the freedom of end users over the freedom of developers. BSD is the opposite. There's no formula that gives you both.

GPL happened because Stallman got frustrated by some bugs or limitations in a laser printer they had at MIT (back when laser printers were super expensive) and he couldn't get the source code or tools needed to go into the firmware and fix it. So, he set about to create a license where he'd have the ability to make DIY repairs and modifications to any so-licensed software that he used.

The main reason Linux is so successful is that its use of GPL and lack of a kernel ABI strongly encourages people using it to upstream their changes. Without it, Linux wouldn't have nearly as many features or the level of hardware support it currently enjoys, because too many vendors would just maintain out-of-tree drivers or custom forks. What you're asking for is impossible. We wouldn't get the Linux we have, without GPL like it is.

Also, it's no accident Linux rules the cloud. Cloud operators want full source code to the OS and all its drivers. They want to be able to build, modify, debug, audit, and tune it themselves. Linux gives them that in a way no other OS would. There's no proprietary, closed-source driver nonsense (not that Nvidia didn't try, but eventually lost that battle).

Finally, your request is really puzzling. If you believe GPL is what's keeping Sony from embracing Linux, then they'd use a non-GPL Linux in exactly the same way they're now using BSD, which is to say that it'd be just as much of a closed black box. So, it would change nothing for you, as an end user. Maybe PS5 game devs would benefit slightly. But, the only reason you even know what OS it's running is because someone told you. Not because it's of any practical significance to you. And that would continue to be the case, were they to use a non-GPL Linux.

"In the beginning, it was also to the advantage of Linux that its license, the GNU General Public License version 2 (GPLv2) made it possible to share the efforts of many programmers but without letting their work be used against them (closed inside competing proprietary software). That, as I see it, was one of the problems with the BSD Unix family --FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc.-- and its BSD License".
-- Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

[kpedersen]

I love to see, massively global products are now based on open source instead of proprietary developments.

Even the very first Playstation 1 compiler was based on open-source (GCC). When it comes to large compilers, I don't think commercial companies can keep up vs the entirety of the open-source community.

[lowflyer]

Even the very first Playstation 1 compiler was based on open-source (GCC). When it comes to large compilers, I don't think commercial companies can keep up vs the entirety of the open-source community.

Compare C++ standard compliance between the two open-source compilers GCC and Clang versus the proprietary MSVC. Bear in mind that MSVC's standard library officially is "open source" and available on github.