Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C++11 & The Long-Term Viability Of GCC Is Questioned

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • yogi_berra
    replied
    Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
    Good joke! GPL is synonymous of success and BSD is a synonymous of big failure. BSD was in the game till GPL Linux has come. Linux killed BSD, but some necromancers keep this shit undead. Android isn't BSD, so get your facts straight. Mozilla isn't GPL... Clang/LLVM is a toy compared to GCC which compiles much more software for much more architectures and which is faster. Go home, because BSD is meaningless.
    GPL use is decreasing, Apache, MIT, and BSD are increasing. http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by BeardedGNUFreak View Post
    It shouldn't surprise anyone that the viral GPL license us is dying and free BSD style licenses are rapidly on the rise.

    The GPL has become synonymous with failure:

    * GPL Mozilla Firefox got taken out by BSD licensed Chrome

    * GPL licensed Linux cellphone OSes got take out by BSD licensed Android

    * GPL licensed GCC has been made into a joke compared to the modern Clang/LLVM toolchain.

    It is hilarious to see the incompetent GCC clowns shitting themselves as Clang/LLVM has exploded in use and development. Funny how now that developers and companies are free of the garbage GPL that there has been an explosion in code sharing and massive leaps forward in compiler development with Clang/LLVM.
    Good joke! GPL is synonymous of success and BSD is a synonymous of big failure. BSD was in the game till GPL Linux has come. Linux killed BSD, but some necromancers keep this shit undead. Android isn't BSD, so get your facts straight. Mozilla isn't GPL... Clang/LLVM is a toy compared to GCC which compiles much more software for much more architectures and which is faster. Go home, because BSD is meaningless.

    Leave a comment:


  • log0
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    You mean the one that still isn't fully working after like, a year? RADEON_LLVM?
    Nice try, but no. If you want to complain about RADEON_LLVM, then AMD/Mesa driver guys are the ones to go to.

    Btw even if not ready yet, isn't it cool to have a compiler with GPU back-ends? I hope INTEL will follow AMD here.

    Leave a comment:


  • gamerk2
    replied
    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    The reason they can't put it in the garage for two years is because so much open source infrastructure depends on it, not only to exist as it is now with bug fixes, but to progress with cpu architecture support, language support, standards support, platform support etc.
    Pardon me for saying, but its not like SW development is going to screech to a halt if C++1x support isn't added for a few months.

    Leave a comment:


  • ryao
    replied
    Originally posted by carewolf View Post
    No, no and no.

    Maybe I am biased being an actualWebKit developer, but there is no such process happening at any level, and you obviously have misunderstood what WebKit2 is since it is simply a new API for WebCore, not a new project or replacement for any code except interface code.

    KHTML -> WebCore
    WebKit(1) old API for WebCore, used by Chromium, Qt and iOS
    WebKit2 new API for WebCore, used by Safari and Qt.
    I thought that we were talking about WebKit, not WebCore.

    Originally posted by linux5850 View Post
    Can Clang/LLVM rebuild a whole distro like Gentoo from source? If not it's still a toy.
    We are gradually working toward fixing that. It is not a high priority project though.

    Originally posted by vertexSymphony View Post
    I built my whole system from sources using just Clang ... and with Gentoo (when I used it; not-so-long-ago) I compiled *most* of it (can't remember exact numbers, but grub and linux kernel weren't on the list *for sure*)

    Regards.
    Linux, GRUB and glibc are the main things that won't build with Clang. Recent versions of binutils will not build with Clang either. That is due to a bug in Clang.

    Originally posted by skies View Post
    Nonsense I say.

    - C++: static analyzers
    - code re-formatters,
    - syntax highlighters

    These functions should be done by a separate standalone tool for each task, that is the UNIX/POSIX way of doing things, not the compiler or the compiler backend. A C compiler should produce assembler output, nothing else.

    Ofcause full C++11 support is a nice thing to have. But there is no hurry, the C++11 standard is still new.
    Go write separate utilities for each and get back to us.

    Leave a comment:


  • yogi_berra
    replied
    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    I mentioned GPL and Apple's licence incompability since they are both copy-left. As for FreeBSD's base system, they are (for ideological reasons) purging their base system of GPL licenced code. https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase
    As opposed to Google's "no GPL in userspace" policy which isn't ideological at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    Originally posted by log0 View Post
    This is the idea behind LLVM, a compiling library implementing dozens separate components. It simplifies the job of writing compilers. For example, it took only about two weeks to implement a OpenGL/GLSL JIT compiler using LLVM.
    You mean the one that still isn't fully working after like, a year? RADEON_LLVM?

    Leave a comment:


  • log0
    replied
    Originally posted by skies View Post
    Nonsense I say.

    - C++: static analyzers
    - code re-formatters,
    - syntax highlighters

    These functions should be done by a separate standalone tool for each task, that is the UNIX/POSIX way of doing things, not the compiler or the compiler backend. A C compiler should produce assembler output, nothing else.

    Ofcause full C++11 support is a nice thing to have. But there is no hurry, the C++11 standard is still new.
    To follow the UNIX/POSIX way of doing things GCC should consist of at least three modules: front-end, optimizer, back-end. Where you have standalone language specific front-ends and hardware specific back-ends processing/producing an IR. To allow more code sharing and aggressive optimization you may also want to split Linker, Link Time Optimizer, Code Generators.

    This is the idea behind LLVM, a compiling library implementing dozens separate components. It simplifies the job of writing compilers. For example, it took only about two weeks to implement a OpenGL/GLSL JIT compiler using LLVM.

    Try to do the same with GCC. Static analyzers, re-formatters, highlighters are just the icing on the cake...

    Leave a comment:


  • skies
    replied
    Nonsense

    Nonsense I say.

    - C++: static analyzers
    - code re-formatters,
    - syntax highlighters

    These functions should be done by a separate standalone tool for each task, that is the UNIX/POSIX way of doing things, not the compiler or the compiler backend. A C compiler should produce assembler output, nothing else.

    Ofcause full C++11 support is a nice thing to have. But there is no hurry, the C++11 standard is still new.

    Leave a comment:


  • nslay
    replied
    Originally posted by linux5850 View Post
    Can Clang/LLVM rebuild a whole distro like Gentoo from source? If not it's still a toy.
    Even if it couldn't, it can build 21000 of 24000 3rd party applications in FreeBSD ports.

    https://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang

    Those remaining 3000 may have inter-dependencies, so it may not have failed on every single one of those remaining 3000.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X