Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,650

    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
    3,801

    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 05:27 PM. Reason: typo

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kingston, Jamaica
    Posts
    316

    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
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jayrulez View Post
    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?
    Google, Facebook, Red Hat, VMware, Cray, etc. etc. all employ far more Clang/LLVM developers than Apple does. They will keep it open. I'm at a C++ SG meeting hosted by Microsoft, and I heard from Chandler Carruth (Google) that the LLVM community are getting LLVM/Clamg moved to be managed by its own non-profit, so community direction and ownership should cease to be anything but a straw man hypothetical soon. It'll be no different than fearing that Apache might turn proprietary tomorrow.

    So far as "why Clang," the answer continues to be "tools". GCC is all but useless for IDE code completion and custom static analysis, and is outright completely useless for automated refactoring and code transformations, as GCC intentionally lacks the necessary information in its AST.

    GCC is also difficult to hack on, which is why so many people who want to work on compilers for fun have jumped on the Clang train. GCC works very well, yes, but only because there is a small core of very dedicated folks who've spent a decade or more accumulating knowledge on the code base. GCC may even be at greater risk of disappearing when you rely on it, because the project has a large "bus factor": too much of its success is dependent on a small number of very difficult to replace people. Clang is easy to jump into and hence getting new people up to expert levels on its internals is much much easier.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    117

    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Why is there no -O flag set on the 7-zip test? It's absolotely pointless to benchmark code when you don't actually use ANY optimizations.

Posting Permissions

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