Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Modularizing GCC Gets Discussed, Again

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

  • tuxd3v
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    all its ugliness c++ got from compatibility with c. so uneducated c zealots really shouldn't talk about it
    The problem of the c++ been so ugly, have nothing to do with C language, but instead with the "psyco trance parties" and "movie of terror" that the creators have done hours before start writing code for it...

    And because of that, they created a powerful language, but a freak one...some sort of "the MAster Frankenstein" of all the Frankensteins in programing languages out there...

    I think that the educated people out there understand this fact very well, and maybe because they are educated enough, and have GOOD TASTE...they don't like this language...

    Leave a comment:


  • Thaodan
    replied
    I hope GCC moves forward, cause I don't like gcc cause you can close the staff you want so that you can close critical components and lock a device.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post
    I think that Stallman is not against the modularity of gcc, modularity is a good thing...

    Stallman is against a re-write of gcc in c++, which I disapprove too, because c++ is a very ugly language!
    He is not against modularity, from what I understand..
    all its ugliness c++ got from compatibility with c. so uneducated c zealots really shouldn't talk about it

    Leave a comment:


  • tuxd3v
    replied
    I think that Stallman is not against the modularity of gcc, modularity is a good thing...

    Stallman is against a re-write of gcc in c++, which I disapprove too, because c++ is a very ugly language!
    He is not against modularity, from what I understand..

    Leave a comment:


  • oleid
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    That's good to hear. That's a lot better than it was a little less than a year ago.
    For the records: The compiler introduced itself as clang-3.7, but it should be quite the same as clang-3.6, considering it isn't out, yet. Oh, and I'm on a mostly stable profile, only trying an ~amd64 package it the stable version didn't compile. Compiling gentoo with Clang makes it so faaaaast
    Last edited by oleid; 03-09-2015, 03:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    That's good to hear. That's a lot better than it was a little less than a year ago.
    I would imagine FreeBSD shifting over to CLang fulltime probably had a big influence on that.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by oleid View Post
    Actually, Gentoo compiles fine with clang, with only a few ( maybe ten) packages being rerouted to gcc (gnome desktop profile). There is only a crash in gjs I couldn't figure out, yet. I used clang-9999 for the build.
    That's good to hear. That's a lot better than it was a little less than a year ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • oleid
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    While I do agree that LLVM is awesome. Clang still has issues with the GCC entrenchment. Right now gcc compiles my entire gentoo system without any problems really. Clang only works with specific packages. It seems like clang needs a gcc compatibility mode or something so that it deals with gcc entrenchment better.
    Actually, Gentoo compiles fine with clang, with only a few ( maybe ten) packages being rerouted to gcc (gnome desktop profile). There is only a crash in gjs I couldn't figure out, yet. I used clang-9999 for the build.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    While I do agree that LLVM is awesome. Clang still has issues with the GCC entrenchment. Right now gcc compiles my entire gentoo system without any problems really. Clang only works with specific packages. It seems like clang needs a gcc compatibility mode or something so that it deals with gcc entrenchment better.

    Leave a comment:


  • wizard69
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    Which there's been significant resistance by Stallman, going by the GNU lists...
    Exactly!

    Stallman is more than resistance though as he out right undermines anything that might be seen as a new approach. It is a shame that he turned GPL3 into such an unworkable license for companies to work with as there is little reason to support the development of GCC anymore.


    The other big gotcha here is mind share that LLVM attracts. Not so much for the C/C++ compilers but rather for all the new language development that has taken place on top of LLVM. Just today I noticed on Phoronix that another LUA derivative is in the works built upon LLVM. This is just one of many languages now working on top of LLVM. This means there is a considerable amount of talent being expended on interaction with LLVM which is helps with LLVM development as well as the language in question.

    The head start LLVM has is huge. This is why I suggested that the GCC team has a decades worth of work ahead of them. That is work to make the GCC suite as flexible and as broadly supported as LLVM is now.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X