OpenMandriva Is Finding Great Success In Their Switch To Using LLVM's Clang Compiler

[grigi]

Reading the article and related I find it interesting that for:
* tiny compile perf increase (as per Michaels benchmarks)
* Somewhat better error mesages (but, really GCC 8 stepped up a lot, the difference is getting smaller)
* Can run git snapshots

They have to:
* run on git snapshots to get bugfixes
* handle thousands of patches
* many of those patches are disputed as having to work around deficiencies in llvm (which turns this into a political game)
* and hundreds more packages in your backup compiler in any case
* support less architectures, so in some arch you revert back to your old compiler.

This is called "great success"…
This made me pause.
The only reason you would do this is I can think of is for money, academic or as part of a war on "justice".

Yes, I get it GCC needed a kick in the butt to get moving, but, seriously, have you seen the constant improvements since gcc 4.6 onwards? I sure have.

[carewolf]

Except for licensing, I don't understand why would a package builder permanently switch from GCC to Clang (or vice versa) for all packages. Neither of the two compilers dominates the other one.

Well I am glad somebody is doing it, compiling packages with different compilers is good for source code health, and I am glad OpenMandriva is doing it, because I wouldnt want to pointlessly kick myself in the dick all the time, and prefer to watch them do it.

[cybertraveler]

Can I take your stuff, put a header on top with my copyright and pretend I built it all? Oh wait, that's what Apple did...

That's the reason people distruct BSD-alike licenses.

BSD-style licensed code legally requires that you preserve the license, copyright headers and attribution when you republish the code.

[wizard69]

GCC is sponsored by https://www.fsf.org/

LLVM is sponsored by http://llvm.org/foundation/sponsors.html

That large sponsor list is the best thing to happen to LLVM and free software. The diversity in that client list prevented LLVM from becoming a one vendor solution. That wide spread support has also made LLVM the place to do research.

Money rules and many people see that as a threat.

So people supporting their families is a bad thing? I really don’t understand this attitude. This is especially frustrating in the sense of LLVM where it’s component based architecture allows focused exploitation of the code base.

A compiler is a such thing that only companies who use it can provide good quality. When GCC is used by C-SKY Microsystems and Mentor Graphics the future of GCC does not look good.

I’m not even sure what you mean here. The fact that many companies have embraced LLVM and its suite of tools has lead directly to the high quality of those tool. In fact I can’t think of any set of tools that has come as far as LLVM in the short time it has existed.

To put it bluntly GCC has become a failure and needs to embrace a larger developer pool. Let’s face it the GCC team for the longest time was less receptive to change than many closed source projects. I highly doubt that GCC would’ve where it is today if it wasn’t for the competition that LLVM brought to open software.

Friendly competition is a good thing.

[starshipeleven]

Can I take your stuff, put a header on top with my copyright and pretend I built it all? Oh wait, that's what Apple did...

That's the reason people distruct BSD-alike licenses.

That's a direct violation of BSD license. That's literally the only fucking thing the BSD license forbids.

How is that different from GPL or even proprietary.

[wizard69]

It's not harassment to point out that GNU/Linux is the proper name for the desktop OS people often refer to as just "Linux". You don't even have to subscribe to the whole GNU / Free Software philosophy to decide to call it by its proper name. I'm not really into the whole GNU / GPL / Free Software stuff, but I recognise that I only have the GNU/Linux desktop I have today because of Stallman and the people who work with him to bring us a "fully free" UNIX-like OS.

It makes sense to call it GNU/Linux purely for practical reasons.

• The Google Pixel 3 phone runs Android which is not GNU/Linux. It just uses the Linux kernel.
• The Purism Librem 5 phone runs PureOS which is GNU/Linux: the GNU OS with the Linux kernel.

I'm not pushing an agenda or promoting GNU. I'm just stating the truth.

I think people can think more clearly and thus operate more effectively when they are aligned with truth.

But you aren’t stating the truth! Linux is Linux! What is included is another thing. Your argument makes about as much sense as calling MacOS, BSD UNIX!

Now that doesn’t mean we should dismiss GNU for the tools they provide. By the way those tools are often functional copies of software found on old UNIX versions. Again that isn’t a bad thing but it highlights that slapping GNU on top of Linux isn’t exactly putting the best face on reality.

[wizard69]

Except for licensing, I don't understand why would a package builder permanently switch from GCC to Clang (or vice versa) for all packages. Neither of the two compilers dominates the other one.

That is actually a good question. Since I’m not involved in the project I can only guess as to possible reasons. Some possibilities:


1. Better debugging and tools lead to catching more bugs. Simply using a different compiler can turn up questionable code.
2. There was a mention of compiler speed but I’m not sure the delta even exists anymore. There may still be advantages in the overall development cycle.
3. Faster code? This is debatable but I wouldn’t be surprised that modern libs help a lot here.
4. I’ve ever seen an issue being raised by the distro developers here that indicate an issue with licenses or even politics for that matter. They seem to be driven by a desire to build a better distro. Now given that I can see users caring not to have GCC and the encumbered libs as this reduces risk for developers.
5. Maybe they like the challenge or just being different! Either way these alternative distro just strengthen Linux by increased by the diversity of solutions.

[wizard69]

Can I take your stuff, put a header on top with my copyright and pretend I built it all? Oh wait, that's what Apple did...

That's the reason people distruct BSD-alike licenses.

Obviously you don’t know what you are talking about here. If you care to look Apple has a file for every licensed bit of software they ship. It is a big file.

This is perhaps one one of the biggest problems I have with the GNU crowd and that is the use of out right lies to support their positions. Maybe they don’t like the idea that BSD is a freer license than GPL 3.

[computerquip]

Can I take your stuff, put a header on top with my copyright and pretend I built it all? Oh wait, that's what Apple did...

That's the reason people distruct BSD-alike licenses.

When did Apple do this exactly?

[wizard69]

I am pretty sure the free software communities started precisely when they couldn't do this. AFAIK it was a printer driver that prevented Stallman from doing what he needed to do.

So? I mean honestly what drove Stallman 50 years ago shouldn’t be warping today’s discussion. This especially when GPL 3 has become such a hideous license.

The "Problem" with LLVM is that it has big business support precisely because it is not GPL (V3).

Err no it got support because it was interesting tech at the time. The arrival of GPL 3 did however cement it in the business world. The fact is business can’t take the risk of an even more radical GPL 4.

The big businesses want the ability to screw their customers over should it become a profitable avenue. They want their silos.

Nonsense! LLVM took of In the business world because it reduces risk when it comes to something they will never make money on. Even Apple publicly admitted this when releasing XCode as a free product. It is extremely difficult to recover the expense of building a set of tools like LLVM. In a nut shell few companies survive solely on selling compilers and almost none have a suite of tools like the LLVM project offers.

Simply put few companies see compilers as profit centers.

While that may be beneficial to a specific business it ends up screwing over the ecosystem

How? The LLVM ecosystem is huge! This includes working tools, new innovations and all sorts of research using the suite of tools. At this point the over all impact of LLVM is significantly larger than GCC.

look at the ARM world. Because all the SOC's and companies built their own silos even when most use the same components most SoC companies need their own build with a specific version of the software because that is how their silo operates and doing anything outside there is 100x as hard.

That is the ARM world which is largely a function of growing up in the embedded and special function world. They will either adapt or give up in the general computing world. Given that you will only see ARM in innovative machines in the future because innovation requires breaking away from the X86 world that has dominated for so long. X86 has literally painted itself into a corner with the obsession with a standard platform.

There is a similar risk with Google Chrome - those that remember the days of IE6 dominance should shudder at the thought. It took years of work to overcome the damage that caused. As some governments had mandates online platforms that were designed to only working with IE6, it meant it stood around for far longer than it should have.

what does this have to do with the discussion? Seriously government do a lot of stupid things and frankly mandates are a good portion of them. Just consider what has happened in the USA with stupid policies and mandates. By the way it isn’t just governments, the corporation I work for hung onto IE 6 for way too long. IE 6 was just one of a long line of stupid IT policies. If you are at the wrong end of the pyramid there isn’t much you can do about it.