Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: LLVM/Clang Replacing GCC In FreeBSD Base

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    258

    Default

    I'm personally alarmed whenever I hear the word 'Apple'. I wouldn't touch half a bit of what that company supports or does. It's by wide and far employed policies that are more harmful to users than Microsoft's.

    Then again, LLVM and Clang both seem to be licensed bsd-like, so if it's similar to the Google situation with Chromium, it's acceptable.

    Still, I wouldn't want to use anything written by anyone that gets their paycheck from Apple.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by susikala View Post
    Still, I wouldn't want to use anything written by anyone that gets their paycheck from Apple.
    I'll take your printer.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by susikala View Post
    Still, I wouldn't want to use anything written by anyone that gets their paycheck from Apple.
    They have an svn repo where the source code resides, go check what those scary Apple engineers are up to.
    http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html
    Though seems by that page that there are a few catches for early adaptors with even compiling C (C++ is way too immature to even mention):
    "The semantic analyzer does not produce all of the warnings it should."
    "We don't consider the API to be stable yet, and reserve the right to change fundamental things."
    "The driver is currently implemented in python and is 'really slow'."
    So this might at worst increase the required amount of maintenance significantly if put to use too early.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by susikala View Post
    I'm personally alarmed whenever I hear the word 'Apple'. I wouldn't touch half a bit of what that company supports or does. It's by wide and far employed policies that are more harmful to users than Microsoft's.

    Then again, LLVM and Clang both seem to be licensed bsd-like, so if it's similar to the Google situation with Chromium, it's acceptable.

    Still, I wouldn't want to use anything written by anyone that gets their paycheck from Apple.
    Everything that has to do with the kernel, along with things hijacked from the community like WebKit and LLVM, are open source under real OSI licenses still.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joffe View Post
    Everything that has to do with the kernel, along with things hijacked from the community like WebKit and LLVM, are open source under real OSI licenses still.
    *shrug* I was thinking of migrating to clang just *because* of the fact that it uses BSDL instead of GPL.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Clang-on-llvm will ultimately be a big improvement over GCC in a lot of respects (speed, ease-of-use), but it seems like it's currently very immature. Perhaps the BSD developers are doing this in order to get the development resources put towards clang in hopes that it will get the development resources necessary to become a real replacement for GCC. Perhaps it will also help them make their code more portable by having to remove GCC extensions from it.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    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.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    258

    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.
    I'd actually be more inclined to believe that reason than any other. The BSDs have historically tried to replace GPL'd software in their codebase, OpenBSD/NetBSD and the PCC is no exception.

    de Raadt actually commented on it in more constructive vain:

    Quote Originally Posted by Theo de Raadt
    But that's never really been the agenda, see. Some people think we hate GNU code. But the thing is we hate large code, and buggy code that upstream does not maintain. That's the real problem... gcc gets about 5-6% slower every release, has new bugs, generates crappy code, and drives us nuts. This is just an attempt to see if something better can show up.

    We're just fighting against an open source monopoly...

  9. #19

    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.
    Even Linux devs complain about GCC and Theo de Raadt is probably right...

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    902

    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.
    I thought they were doing it because they got tired of their respective bug fixes being rejected by the GCC committee and they didn't want to fork GCC.

Posting Permissions

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