Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: GCC 4.6/4.7 vs. LLVM-Clang 3.0/3.1 Compilers

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,359

    Default GCC 4.6/4.7 vs. LLVM-Clang 3.0/3.1 Compilers

    Phoronix: GCC 4.6/4.7 vs. LLVM-Clang 3.0/3.1 Compilers

    With LLVM/Clang 3.1 due out next week, here's a look at the compiler performance of the GCC 4.6 and 4.7 compilers compared to LLVM-Clang 3.0 and a recent LLVM-Clang 3.1 SVN snapshot...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA5Nzc

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    74

    Default

    LLVM is now almost there.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default No its not

    Clang is further away then it was before the last update. GCC 4.7 has made significant gains on its self and is still a much better all round choice for the vast majority of use cases.

    Why on earth would anyone replace a perfectly good compiler that is guaranteed to remain free software, with something that can be taken proprietary at any point? Even if there are small gains to be had (which there are not) risk that your compiler can be closed off to you (BSD Licence) vs no risk of the compiler being closed off (GPL) seems like a fairly obvious choice to me.


    I am wondering why this site is so interested in clang. maybe there are some vested interests? I can't see any other reason for it...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,778

    Default

    Please ignore the troll. Do NOT reply to him.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default that was my first post...

    how on earth did you come to that conclusion?

    I have made factual observations that have ramifications should clang become the new standard compiler.

    I like honest debate RealNC. You however seem to be in the business of making cheap-shot accusations.

    - BSD gives selfish interests the ability to screw everyone over.
    That's fine by the way. I am NOT suggesting that you should not rely on BSD licensed software if you want to. I'd just like to make sure everyone is clear on the potential problems of using such software.

    GPL does not give vested interests the ability to screw everyone over.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fnoss View Post
    how on earth did you come to that conclusion?

    I have made factual observations that have ramifications should clang become the new standard compiler.

    I like honest debate RealNC. You however seem to be in the business of making cheap-shot accusations.

    - BSD gives selfish interests the ability to screw everyone over.
    That's fine by the way. I am NOT suggesting that you should not rely on BSD licensed software if you want to. I'd just like to make sure everyone is clear on the potential problems of using such software.

    GPL does not give vested interests the ability to screw everyone over.
    Oh no that flamewar again. Please just stop it before this grows.

    We all know the differences between GPL-like (copyleft) and BSD-like licenses.
    Last edited by bachinchi; 05-07-2012 at 04:27 PM. Reason: typo

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kingston, Jamaica
    Posts
    295

    Default

    Say Apple for some reason makes clang proprietary, can the open source community not fork and continue to develop the last open source version of clang before it became proprietary?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fnoss View Post
    GPL does not give vested interests the ability to screw everyone over.
    Except that GPL is a vested interest in itself.

    GCC codebase is a mess and poorly documented. LLVM is clean and well documented. That's why clang is exciting.

Posting Permissions

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