GCC 5 Is Compiling Faster, But Still Falls Short Of Clang

[tarceri]

Your reading comprehension issues are that bad?

No but yours must be. The first half of your sentence implies that the license isn't the major reason for clang adoption, in essence you are agreeing with my argument, the second half implies that you believe it is in fact the major reason.

Please inform me what I failed to comprehend.

[brad0]

No but yours must be. The first half of your sentence implies that the license isn't the major reason for clang adoption, in essence you are agreeing with my argument, the second half implies that you believe it is in fact the major reason.

Please inform me what I failed to comprehend.

The post I was replying to tried to downplay the license having anything to do with why LLVM/Clang is taking off. It was a complete load of horse shit. The license is very much a part of why it is taking off. It isn't the one and only reason but it is a major part of it. If you can't grasp that from what I said you do have reading compression issues.

[tarceri]

The post I was replying to tried to downplay the license having anything to do with why LLVM/Clang is taking off. It was a complete load of horse shit. The license is very much a part of why it is taking off. It isn't the one and only reason but it is a major part of it. If you can't grasp that from what I said you do have reading compression issues.

Face it your reply was an attempt at playing it safe, a foot in both camps in case I called your bluff.

As fair as the license having little to do with the fast adoption I stand by my call. I've been following llvm for many years and the hype and thus interest, contributions, and use has always been about its potential and very well thought out flexible design. The license may these days be a factor in its growing use in limited proprietary applications such as chrome and apples various langauges but thats not what we are talking about. In regards to clang vs gcc very few people could care less about what license is used, people just want a good c compiler its not like someone is going to go into business selling a new c compiler based of clang.

[brad0]

Face it your reply was an attempt at playing it safe, a foot in both camps in case I called your bluff.

Wow, you really are nuts.

[birdie]

This mantra, "which compiler compiles faster" is actually a horse byproduct to put it mildly.

Absolutely most programmers are only interested in the speed of the resulting code: it has to be the highest.

Whenever you need to compile your program in GCC in less time, you can always do that by not using any optimization flags. That's it.

I cannot even understand why you, Michael, pay any attention to this thing. No one else on the Internet does that. I compile a lot of code, and I'm not even slightly interested in Clang unless it produces the same high performing code.

[brad0]

This mantra, "which compiler compiles faster" is actually a horse byproduct to put it mildly.

Absolutely most programmers are only interested in the speed of the resulting code: it has to be the highest.

Whenever you need to compile your program in GCC in less time, you can always do that by not using any optimization flags. That's it.

I cannot even understand why you, Michael, pay any attention to this thing. No one else on the Internet does that. I compile a lot of code, and I'm not even slightly interested in Clang unless it produces the same high performing code.

LOL. Nice troll attempt. This is such an obvious and pathetic attempt too it is so bad.

[mike4]

Yea, even compiling a huge project should only result in some seconds, hence nobody cares but the speed of the compiled app. I even find such testing confusing and ridiculous.- Michael
you should compare compiled apps speed, if comparing at all.

[Hextremist]

Where I used to work it would take eight hours to compile everything cleanly from scratch, on the fastest, meanest machines available. Any improvement to this was very much welcomed.

Well, why did you compile everything from scratch? Sounds like componentizing your software would be a far more efficient way to save time than using a faster compiler...

[-MacNuke-]

Absolutely most programmers are only interested in the speed of the resulting code

And why should I wait 2-3x times longer to get my binary, only because gcc is 5% faster in some insane compiler flags I can never ever ship to my customers?

Why should I care how fast my new function is? The first thing I want to know while writing and compiling code is "Does it work?", "Are there errors?", "Where are the errors?", "What is wrong?" and "Are there errors that are not visible to me right now?".

[Guest]

The license is very much a part of why it is taking off. It isn't the one and only reason but it is a major part of it. If you can't grasp that from what I said you do have reading compression issues.

That may be true, but only when comes to broad usage of Clang. When comes to its development I think it's exactly opposite. The BSD license is interesting when you don't plan to bring improvements back or when you're working on closed source project. I'd love to see how many companies work on Clang. If you can provide such data I'd be grateful