Patch By Patch, LLVM Clang Gets Better At Building The Linux Kernel

[caligula]

What? Allow large companies, like Apple, to privatize the code and use it as if it were unique creation; IT is have liberty?

Clang shows to be really amazing , but the BSD license and the influence of Apple on code leaves me "on the back foot."

Sorry, but I'd pick LLVM any day over GCC. The problem with building GPL2/3 tainted binaries can be huge in enterprise environments. CLANG isi the fist compiler truly free for corporate use. Besides the error messages are better and better diagnostics and no RMS toenail intact in the legacy spaghetti code.

[tajjada]

This endeavor is being undertaken so that companies can compile the kernel without using a GPLv3 compiler. It's important to them that they aren't permanently stuck on GCC4.2 for the rest of time.

The problem with building GPL2/3 tainted binaries

Can you please explain to me what you mean by that. I don't understand what the license of the compiler/toolchain has to do with the generated binary code.

I even found this https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq...eGPLToolsForNF which says otherwise.

[amehaye]

I must have missed the memo - what exactly is the problem with GPLv3 compiler?
AFAIK using GPLv3 gcc doesn't make your code GPL. In fact it should have no effect at all on the license of the compiled program.

[caligula]

I must have missed the memo - what exactly is the problem with GPLv3 compiler?
AFAIK using GPLv3 gcc doesn't make your code GPL. In fact it should have no effect at all on the license of the compiled program.

Some companies cannot use gpl apps even internally so using LLVM is preferred in the long run. There are many such reasons. llvm might be technically better in a long run and also apple won't support gcc that is gpl3 licensed so it's a dead end on mac. They might fear the license hurts ide and plugin development (xcode). Also many companies ideologically hate gpl. Using gpl products when developing your own apps gives the impression you embrace stallman ideology.

[smitty3268]

Can you please explain to me what you mean by that. I don't understand what the license of the compiler/toolchain has to do with the generated binary code.

I even found this https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq...eGPLToolsForNF which says otherwise.

I don't understand it either, but that doesn't change the fact that certain companies out there have policies which forbid their employees from ever using GPLv3 code. Apple is one such company. Lots of ARM vendors are others. They're the ones pushing for this, so they can run Android and have it be closer to upstream kernel, or just use the linux kernel directly with clang. For this reason Macs and BSDs generally only provide GCC 4.2 by default, and tell you to use LLVM if you want anything modern. (Although you can generally find newer GCC to install if you want).

I half suspect one lawyer somewhere didn't really understand the issue and took the paranoid route of banning it forever, and everyone else has just assumed they must have had a good reason for doing it, but who knows. Maybe there actually is a good reason, or maybe it's all just politics and they are refusing to support a license they don't want to see succeed.

[arrow]

Using gpl products when developing your own apps gives the impression you embrace stallman ideology.

and

I half suspect one lawyer somewhere didn't really understand the issue and took the paranoid route of banning it forever, and everyone else has just assumed they must have had a good reason for doing it, but who knows. Maybe there actually is a good reason, or maybe it's all just politics and they are refusing to support a license they don't want to see succeed.

We fall on a policy and ideology discuss. I don't will debate here about it, and you guys are libre (theoretically, but the wall have ear) to believe and support one of then. But, I just request to read more about the two sides of history, before write ignorant ('ignoto' mean "unknown" on latin) positions.
And, as I say, I know how the gpl limit companies in many ways and this represent a coping to the same. "caligura" the Stallman figure was necessary to GNU/Linux born... without this extremist ideology, most likely we would not be write on this site.
[just to say, the v3 of GPL is a bullshit, because it is incompatible with v2. This spread the Free world of the Open Source world. Try use "GPLv2+"... the unique point good on the v3 is the block of tivoization].

GNU ideology

[smitty3268]

We fall on a policy and ideology discuss. I don't will debate here about it, and you guys are libre (theoretically, but the wall have ear) to believe and support one of then. But, I just request to read more about the two sides of history, before write ignorant ('ignoto' mean "unknown" on latin) positions.

Honestly, my understanding from the GPL creators is that a v3 compiler can create code with any license you want. Are you saying you have an explanation that it isn't true? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I'm not even really a v3 fan, so I'm not just trying to throw out ideology.

[caligula]

Honestly, my understanding from the GPL creators is that a v3 compiler can create code with any license you want. Are you saying you have an explanation that it isn't true? Or am I misunderstanding you?

You're right. That's how it works. However stupid and ignorant audience always asks this question when you use GPL and fears the program is badly tainted even if the fact is that it isn't. It would also look bad for Apple if they openly supported GCC 4.3+ which is GPL3. They need to give the impression that it's shit and LLVM isn't. Besides at some point launching GCC and other Ports apps on MacOSX was really slow and Clang was fast. They probably deliberately slowed down its loading to make it look worse.

The bigger legal problem is compiler plugin issue. GPL3 prevents proprietary plugins and Apple might generate proprietary compiler & IDE plugins.