Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
First, you're confusing LLVM with Clang. Clang uses LLVM, but LLVM is not Clang, and they do not do the same things at all. GCC is not comparable to LLVM on its own, as GCC is a complete compiler and LLVM is not.
Oh I know exactly what LLVM is and what Clang is, and while Clang was nowhere near useable LLVM was piggybacking on the GCC frontend (gcc-llvm is being deprecated now though since they can piggy-back using the DragonEgg plugin instead).

Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
Second, many companies are using and contributing to LLVM besides Apple. That includes several of those same companies that you list as GCC supporters.
Using: yes, contributing: ...really?, can you point me to some examples? Maybe they are in the are of the JIT-framework because that's the area I'm not very into.

Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
Not to mention larger Open Source projects using LLVM that are also backed by many of those companies you listed.
Again USING is NOT CONTRIBUTING.

Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
In fact, the only company you listed that isn't either directly or indirectly supporting LLVM to my knowledge is CodeSourcery (and maybe they are and I simply don't know about it).
Please show me some examples of 'directly' supporting (as in code or money) LLVM by these said companies. Wtf is indirectly supporting? Giving thumbs up?

Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
You're not going to see direct support on the compiler from companies like Red hat or Suse simply because they were already suppoyrting GCC long before anyone even thought of Clang and have no reason to switch at this time; it's not because GCC's license somehow makes it more palatable to them.
Lol are you saying that Red Hat are not stout proponents of GPL? And no I totally disagree. From a company standpoint when it comes to CONTRIBUTING, GPL makes alot more sense. When it comes to USING, then obviously BSD-style licencing is more attractive.

Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
Third, Clang is not being backed by Apple solely (or even primarily) because of the license.
Yes they are, if they could have used GCC as a frontend for their proprietary development tools they would never have bothered with funding Clang development. Jobs already tried to evade GPL and keep their ObjC frontend proprietary while using the GCC backend back in the NeXT days, it didn't fly.
Recently they took DTrace and built their proprietary 'instruments' from it as part of their proprietary development suite XCode, there's an obvious pattern here.

Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
Clang is being backed because RMS is a douchebag that intentionally sabotaged the usefulness of GCC for years out of fear of evil proprietary code monkeys, making it impossible to use GCC for all of the very cool things that Clang is explicitly designed to support.
Ahh, so you are just some zelot with hatred for RMS, explains alot. In fact, explains ALOT. I don't agree with RMS's opinion that proprietary code is EVIL, but douchebag? Lol, coming from a whiny prick like you that's hilarious.

Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
The Clang Xcode integration (which still uses GCC for its compiler by default, iirc) is happening because Clang actually makes that kind of integration possible in the first place while GCC is utterly incapable of being used for IDE code-completion and the like (independent of the actual license and purely due to architecture and the politics that enforce that shitty architecture in order to more strongly enforce an ideology).
I'm pretty certain you can use the plugin interface for that. And yes that ideology is what the GPL licence is BASED upon, you know, that licence which is by FAR the most used open source licence. Obviously you don't have to go for the whole FSF ideology to use the licence, but the 'grant to other recipients the same rights granted to you' is what makes the licence tick.