Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GCC 5.0 Outruns LLVM 3.5 Compiler By A Bit On Core-AVX2

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

  • GCC 5.0 Outruns LLVM 3.5 Compiler By A Bit On Core-AVX2

    Phoronix: GCC 5.0 Outruns LLVM 3.5 Compiler By A Bit On Core-AVX2

    In anticipation of the LLVM 3.5 release that brings a number of new compiler features -- including possible performance improvements from our benchmarking done earlier today -- here's some benchmarks comparing LLVM Clang 3.5 RC3 to a recent SVN snapshot of the GCC 5.0 compiler that's presently under development.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20857

  • #2
    Way to go GCC and its Copyleft License!

    I'm glad GCC is going strong, and way to go to the copyleft GPL license that governs the project! It annoys me that a project like LLVM is diverting developer attention from GCC. One of the main reasons why the non-copyleft LLVM project was started was to allow Apple to entrap customers with proprietary extensions (embrance and extend) that don't exist in the open source version of LLVM, something that Apple could of course not do with GCC due to its copyleft license that enforces user freedom.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by stan View Post
      I'm glad GCC is going strong, and way to go to the copyleft GPL license that governs the project! It annoys me that a project like LLVM is diverting developer attention from GCC. One of the main reasons why the non-copyleft LLVM project was started was to allow Apple to entrap customers with proprietary extensions (embrance and extend) that don't exist in the open source version of LLVM, something that Apple could of course not do with GCC due to its copyleft license that enforces user freedom.
      You do realize that LLVM was started by and developed from 2000-2005 by the University of Illinois right? and that Apple just bought the rights to it and hired all the developers... right?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
        You do realize that LLVM was started by and developed from 2000-2005 by the University of Illinois right? and that Apple just bought the rights to it and hired all the developers... right?
        GCC was already the established compiler suite when LLVM was started - the people at the University of Illinois should have just improved on it or at least licensed their work under the GPL. The FSF has a how-to specifically for University-affiliated developers:

        http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html

        When you have NIH syndrome and build on a weak non-copyleft legal basis, you let users of your software down, fragment the existing developer base, and open the door to predatory embrace and extend tactics like what we're seeing with Apple's proprietary extensions.
        Last edited by stan; 09-04-2014, 12:56 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by stan View Post
          GCC was already the established compiler suite when LLVM was started - the people at the University of Illinois should have just improved on it or at least licensed their work under the GPL. The FSF has a how-to specifically for University-affiliated developers:

          http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html

          When you have NIH syndrome and build on a weak non-copyleft legal basis, you let users of your software down, fragment the existing developer base, and open the door to predatory embrace and extend tactics like what we're seeing with Apple's proprietary extensions.
          could you at the very least... you know... read the wikipedia article before you go spewing crap like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM

          Besides even if it had been originally created to compete against GCC (which as the wikipedia article will tell you it wasn't, but instead was made for the purpose of research), what it evolved into was essentially the first of the wave of next-gen compilers (Which allows things like IDEs to actually understand the language they're providing an environment for) and so is no more NIH than Wayland is to X11 or systemd to SysV init.

          Also while you can go with GPL without too much issue for the older gen compilers like GCC which are designed to have you work with vi and emacs, next-gen compilers need to be LGPL or more permissive so that IDEs under other licensing terms may use it (let's say someone wants to embed it into oh... I dunno Eclipse) without being forced to rewrite the compiler (or at least the frontend) from scratch (you know like IDEs have basically been doing up to now).

          Comment


          • #6
            I believe the Low-Level Virtual Machine (LLVM) is a very different beast than GCC.

            Comment


            • #7
              LLVM stopped beeing a Low Level Virtual Machine long ago.

              Thats why LLVM is now just LLVM and not an acronym for Low Level Virtual Machine.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ObiWan View Post
                LLVM stopped beeing a Low Level Virtual Machine long ago.

                Thats why LLVM is now just LLVM and not an acronym for Low Level Virtual Machine.
                I wasn't aware that "LLVM" stopped being an acronym, but it still is a Low-Level Virtual Machine, but the scope of the project grew. Anyway, I believe LLVM has been quite different from GCC from its inception.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by stan View Post
                  I'm glad GCC is going strong, and way to go to the copyleft GPL license that governs the project! It annoys me that a project like LLVM is diverting developer attention from GCC. One of the main reasons why the non-copyleft LLVM project was started was to allow Apple to entrap customers with proprietary extensions (embrance and extend) that don't exist in the open source version of LLVM, something that Apple could of course not do with GCC due to its copyleft license that enforces user freedom.
                  Originally posted by stan
                  GCC was already the established compiler suite when LLVM was started - the people at the University of Illinois should have just improved on it or at least licensed their work under the GPL. The FSF has a how-to specifically for University-affiliated developers:

                  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html

                  When you have NIH syndrome and build on a weak non-copyleft legal basis, you let users of your software down, fragment the existing developer base, and open the door to predatory embrace and extend tactics like what we're seeing with Apple's proprietary extensions.
                  Well said my friend. Nothing could be closer to the truth. LLVM has to go if we are to break Apple. Luckily, GCC is still going strong and is in fact getting stronger.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                    <Apple propaganda>
                    Stan knows a lot more that you and your fellow Apple BDSM slaves who defend every atrocity that Apple has committed both an home and abroad.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X