Originally posted by yogi_berra
View Post
LLVM/Clang Replacing GCC In FreeBSD Base
Collapse
X
-
-
-
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostAs a result, I have been told here, that I FUD and lie when I posted those links, and that Linux devs did not complain on the code being buggy.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by kraftman View PostEven Linux devs complain about GCC and Theo de Raadt is probably right...
As a result, I have been told here, that I FUD and lie when I posted those links, and that Linux devs did not complain on the code being buggy. They complained on something else instead. Maybe the hot weather. And I have been told that Theo de Raadt does not nothing anything and that he is, basically, stupid. And that Linus T is not stupid, but he talked about something else. That I dont understand what I did post.
So, when you say that Linux devs and Theo de Raadt complained on GCC, they didnt mean it. The complaints where probably about the latest episode of Seinfeld. So, you can not say GCC is bad, because they talked about Seinfeld.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostThe reason I dislike it is because it allows for... Apple
Leave a comment:
-
-
I've seen a handful of BSD users (and, judging from their rhetoric, probable Ayn Rand fanatics) display outright hatred toward the GPL, but I don't recall ever seeing a major BSD developer do so. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to prefer a permissive license. In particular, GPL is incompatible with lots of licenses that are themselves pretty reasonable. It's also a fairly complex document that is seriously misunderstood (and/or not read in the first place) by a lot of people. Some developers even like the idea of contributing to proprietary products without compensation.
Anyway, I'm happy to see any attempt to challenge GCC's dominance, just to help break up the monoculture a bit. A lot of Linux and BSD programs are written in "GNU C", just like a lot of Windows programs are written in "Microsoft C++". I suspect that Clang will mostly "fix" this by implementing GNU extensions so that existing code compiles without changes, though.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostWell, right now LLVM seems like just hot air to me. I've seen too many "we will be great in the future!" projects. But if they wish to support it, it's their right of course. I'm not even using any BSD. I dislike its license too much :P
Leave a comment:
-
-
Well, right now LLVM seems like just hot air to me. I've seen too many "we will be great in the future!" projects. But if they wish to support it, it's their right of course. I'm not even using any BSD. I dislike its license too much :P
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostNo, it's really the license that interests them. They have some hate of sorts against GPL stuff. I highly doubt this LLVM will offer any real advantages over GCC. Ever.
...ignoring the potential benefits already stated on the LLVM page, I think most people are excitedly waiting for LLVM + Gallium3d to super charge their games, so it's difficult to argue that there will be no benefits ever ;-)
[Edit: FWIW, many seem to feel that XOrg is bloated and needs to go, so why not GCC? We should be happy that there are those willing to rethink and rebuild, especially when it gives us better tools and makes those tools accessible to new developers; it future proofs open source]Last edited by Craig73; 12 May 2009, 05:25 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostNo, it's really the license that interests them. They have some hate of sorts against GPL stuff. I highly doubt this LLVM will offer any real advantages over GCC. Ever.
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment: