So, why can't gcc go into the garage for two years?
C++11 & The Long-Term Viability Of GCC Is Questioned
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by liam View PostSo, why can't gcc go into the garage for two years?
Also the odds of developers leaving it to rot would exponentially go up if they told the world "No new features! No new releases! For two years!" People would get bored, give up, lose hope, and just let gcc die.All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ericg View PostIn the same time it'll be in the garage, LLVM/Clang will move miles and miles ahead in performance, features, quality, speed. When gcc came out it would be in the exact same spot LLVM/Clang was...two years prior.
Also the odds of developers leaving it to rot would exponentially go up if they told the world "No new features! No new releases! For two years!" People would get bored, give up, lose hope, and just let gcc die.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ryao View PostSource code cannot actually die unless everyone deletes it. Otherwise, it remains dormant.All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ericg View PostIn the same time it'll be in the garage, LLVM/Clang will move miles and miles ahead in performance, features, quality, speed. When gcc came out it would be in the exact same spot LLVM/Clang was...two years prior.
Clang/LLVM only supports a subset of the huge hardware/software ecosystem which relies on GCC, so yes they will need to do changes 'on the road', as they've always done. Obviously LLVM and later Clang had the advantage of having nothing be dependent on them during large parts of their development (in large thanks to GCC, LLVM used GCC as it's frontend for most of it's existance), that is a luxury GCC doesn't have.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ryao View PostAs far as I know, Apple open sources stuff on their website and the FreeBSD developers take what they want. xlocale is a good example of this.
Originally posted by ryao View PostAnyway, discussion of the GPL's compatibility with licenses Apple uses really has no place in a discussion of Apple code in FreeBSD. FreeBSD's base system has software under a variety of licenses, including the GPL.
Comment
-
-
Guest
Originally posted by Ericg View PostI think LLVM/Clang will be okay. , Apple incorporates many of its advancements back to FreeBSD, as does Netflix. Mostly because maintaining patches out-of-tree that have to be re-applied and tweaked after every rebase is hardwork that can be severely fscked over by upstream. Better to have your changes in upstream if for no better reason than to remove the maintenance burden from yourself.
Comment
-
Guest
Originally posted by Ericg View PostIn the same time it'll be in the garage, LLVM/Clang will move miles and miles ahead in performance, features, quality, speed. When gcc came out it would be in the exact same spot LLVM/Clang was...two years prior.
Also the odds of developers leaving it to rot would exponentially go up if they told the world "No new features! No new releases! For two years!" People would get bored, give up, lose hope, and just let gcc die.
Comment
Comment