Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: LLVM/Clang Replacing GCC In FreeBSD Base

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    No, it's really the license that interests them. They have some hate of sorts against GPL stuff. I highly doubt this LLVM will offer any real advantages over GCC. Ever.
    Ironically recoding for reasons such as using/not using GPL or Mono or whatever is simply status quo for Open Source in General.

    ...ignoring the potential benefits already stated on the LLVM page, I think most people are excitedly waiting for LLVM + Gallium3d to super charge their games, so it's difficult to argue that there will be no benefits ever ;-)

    [Edit: FWIW, many seem to feel that XOrg is bloated and needs to go, so why not GCC? We should be happy that there are those willing to rethink and rebuild, especially when it gives us better tools and makes those tools accessible to new developers; it future proofs open source]
    Last edited by Craig73; 05-12-2009 at 06:25 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Well, right now LLVM seems like just hot air to me. I've seen too many "we will be great in the future!" projects. But if they wish to support it, it's their right of course. I'm not even using any BSD. I dislike its license too much :P

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Well, right now LLVM seems like just hot air to me. I've seen too many "we will be great in the future!" projects. But if they wish to support it, it's their right of course. I'm not even using any BSD. I dislike its license too much :P
    Yeah, licenses that are compliant with licenses used in other open-source OS's than Linux suck.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    I've seen a handful of BSD users (and, judging from their rhetoric, probable Ayn Rand fanatics) display outright hatred toward the GPL, but I don't recall ever seeing a major BSD developer do so. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to prefer a permissive license. In particular, GPL is incompatible with lots of licenses that are themselves pretty reasonable. It's also a fairly complex document that is seriously misunderstood (and/or not read in the first place) by a lot of people. Some developers even like the idea of contributing to proprietary products without compensation.

    Anyway, I'm happy to see any attempt to challenge GCC's dominance, just to help break up the monoculture a bit. A lot of Linux and BSD programs are written in "GNU C", just like a lot of Windows programs are written in "Microsoft C++". I suspect that Clang will mostly "fix" this by implementing GNU extensions so that existing code compiles without changes, though.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    Yeah, licenses that are compliant with licenses used in other open-source OS's than Linux suck.
    The reason I dislike it is because it allows for... Apple

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    The reason I dislike it is because it allows for... Apple
    So... you're all for freedom, until someone wants to do something with THEIR freedom that YOU don't approve of. Nice.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Even Linux devs complain about GCC and Theo de Raadt is probably right...
    This is strange? I have posted links to Linux kernel devs who complain on the Linux kernel code being buggy. And I have posted links to Theo de Raadt also complaining on the Linux kernel code being buggy. And I have posted links when Linus T says the Linux kernel is bloated.

    As a result, I have been told here, that I FUD and lie when I posted those links, and that Linux devs did not complain on the code being buggy. They complained on something else instead. Maybe the hot weather. And I have been told that Theo de Raadt does not nothing anything and that he is, basically, stupid. And that Linus T is not stupid, but he talked about something else. That I dont understand what I did post.

    So, when you say that Linux devs and Theo de Raadt complained on GCC, they didnt mean it. The complaints where probably about the latest episode of Seinfeld. So, you can not say GCC is bad, because they talked about Seinfeld.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    As a result, I have been told here, that I FUD and lie when I posted those links, and that Linux devs did not complain on the code being buggy.
    That's your problem, you can't expect people to accept facts anymore, especially in the polarized world of internet software discussions.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    That's your problem, you can't expect people to accept facts anymore, especially in the polarized world of internet software discussions.
    Yes, but it is a difference between opinions and official benchmarks or research papers or interviews to Linus Torvalds. Official benchmarks are more credible than some random guy writes something random. Why would I believe a random guy? Maybe he is lying? But, official benchmarks are reproducible, and not a lie. So if a benchmark shows that XXX is way slower than YYY, then it is likely true that XXX is slower than YYY on that type of workload.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •