Originally posted by DaemonFC
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Talk Of GCC 5.0 To Be Modular, More Like LLVM
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by jayrulez View PostAny figure for the % of those packages using gcc specific extensions?
Well, in any case I'm happy with LLVM and Clang, I use both and never had problems with assembly code, debugging and such (in fact, when I had a FreeBSD system around, I compiled the entire base system plus some software with Clang without issues)
ATM I prefer it over GCC, but if the chit-chat at the GCC mailing lists is somewhat true (plus, some advantages of LLVM/Clang), I'll use that version of GCC.
Comment
-
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostAs for Micheal's comparisons against LLVM, first off the projects he names are using LLVM as a JIT compiler, GCC is a static compiler (barring GCJ I suppose) so comparing them in this area is pointless and currently LLVM's real success is as a JIT framework.
When dynamic runtime code is needed, GCJ goes in interpreted mode (which maybe here is where GCJ have bad rep).
Comment
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostThat's about as relevant as asking how many have MSVC extensions, or ICC extensions, or Solaris extensions, or LLVM extensions. It doesn't matter.
This document describes the language extensions provided by Clang. In addition to the language extensions listed here, Clang aims to support a broad range of GCC extensions. Please see the GCC manual for more information on these extensions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostThat's about as relevant as asking how many have MSVC extensions, or ICC extensions, or Solaris extensions, or LLVM extensions. It doesn't matter.
Those extensions should be disabled when a project is setup, just like a programmer abstracts platform, this also makes up for portability...
Regards.
Comment
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostThat's about as relevant as asking how many have MSVC extensions, or ICC extensions, or Solaris extensions, or LLVM extensions. It doesn't matter.
read - STANDARDS, PORTABILITY
I think if LLVM/Clang was never created, then the GCC devs wouldn't be contemplating such improvements so soon (maybe in the next 7-10 years).
Comment
-
Originally posted by vertexSymphony View PostIt does, if we want portable programming, it does.
Those extensions should be disabled when a project is setup, just like a programmer abstracts platform, this also makes up for portability...
Regards.
You are attempting to assign blame, when that doesn't matter. All that matters to the end user is whether or not it works.
If Joe Blow can't install Magic Eight Ball software package in the latest Fedora release, it doesn't matter why. All Joe knows is that he used to be able to and now can't. Therefore the latest Fedora sucks.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jayrulez View PostUnless you expect every compiler to compensate for the short-coming and quirks of other compilers, then it does matter. You cannot write code specific to compiler X, then complain that compiler Y won't compile your code and treat that as a short-coming of compiler Y.
read - STANDARDS, PORTABILITY
Comment
-
Why so much focus on LLVM?
Even on a story which could (and should) have been focused on some free software project, Michael chooses to focus on his favored LLVM. I understand a person having favorite projects, but there needs to be much less reporter's bias here. Something that is almost never mentioned when it comes to stories regarding these and other free software projects are the licensing differences (if any), and the corresponding considerations.
Comment
Comment