Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 94

Thread: FreeBSD 10 To Use Clang Compiler, Deprecate GCC

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,419

    Default FreeBSD 10 To Use Clang Compiler, Deprecate GCC

    Phoronix: FreeBSD 10 To Use Clang Compiler, Deprecate GCC

    As indicated by the Q1-2012 FreeBSD Status Report, LLVM's Clang compiler is quickly replacing GCC for this popular BSD operating system. The developers are also making much progress in a GNU-free C++11 stack. For FreeBSD 10 they're aiming for Clang as the default C/C++ compiler, deprecate GCC, and to have a BSD-licensed C++ stack...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Code compiled with Clang is still slower than fuck, WHY DO WE NOT WANT GCC AGAIN? God, this is like Wayland replacing X11. Lets just replace something that works better with a newer crappier version just because it is new!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxID10T View Post
    Code compiled with Clang is still slower than fuck, WHY DO WE NOT WANT GCC AGAIN? God, this is like Wayland replacing X11. Lets just replace something that works better with a newer crappier version just because it is new!
    In FreeBSD's case, I think the reason they want Clang/LLVM is because they're license purists. Yes, they seriously would rather take a compiler producing shit for code output (very large and very slow binaries) over a GPLed compiler.

    They're also banking on the hope that LLVM will improve. But Apple's engineers are no smarter than the folks who maintain GCC: the fact is that it will take a great many years to mature LLVM to the point that GCC is matured. Compilers aren't simple and you can't write a really good one overnight. LLVM might become as good as GCC 4.x someday, but if the high rate of contribution to GCC continues, it will probably continue to retain some edge over LLVM/Clang, especially on its traditionally most popular target of x86/x86_64.

    This is a demonstration that the FSF isn't the only organization that are license purists. It's telling that the BSD camp always attacks the FSF camp for being GPL license purists, yet when it comes down to deciding which compiler to include in the leading BSD operating system, they base their decision not on technical issues but on license issues. Idealists will never change...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    348

    Default

    x11 works better, you are kidding right? that's why most x.org devs support or even actively work on wayland. including x11 veteran keith packard.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garegin View Post
    x11 works better, you are kidding right? that's why most x.org devs support or even actively work on wayland. including x11 veteran keith packard.
    Lets just forget for the second that X11 already has far, far more features than Wayland. Computers are getting faster all the time, if feature bloat is a problem, it shouldn't be now. I am sick of people that keep trying to reinvent the wheel. WHY?!? Yeah, X11 is old, but it works. The time can be better put into far more useful things. Just my opinion.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxID10T View Post
    Lets just forget for the second that X11 already has far, far more features than Wayland. Computers are getting faster all the time, if feature bloat is a problem, it shouldn't be now. I am sick of people that keep trying to reinvent the wheel. WHY?!? Yeah, X11 is old, but it works. The time can be better put into far more useful things. Just my opinion.
    Sadly, X11 is old and can't compete with Windows and OS X solutions. Wayland is big step forward unlike Clang/llvm which is big step backward for now.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    In FreeBSD's case, I think the reason they want Clang/LLVM is because they're license purists. Yes, they seriously would rather take a compiler producing shit for code output (very large and very slow binaries) over a GPLed compiler.
    Licence purists, sure. But really even though Clang/LLVM produces less performant code (~5-15%) it's certainly anything but a 'shit' compiler.

    However since FreeBSD would not ship any GPLv3 licenced code (due to their corporate sponsors/customers iirc) they were stuck on GCC 4.2 which is like what, 5 years old now? So it's not surprising that the second that Clang/LLVM showed up they decided to switch, not only is it a better compiler than the ~5 year old GCC 4.2 they are stuck with, it also in line with their licence ideology. The transition has taken quite some time due to Clang/LLVM's lack of maturity but it will eventually happen in full. I see this as a good thing, I think the BSD's having to rely on GPL licenced code all these years (particularly in such an important area as the compiler toolchain) has been a sore point for the BSD advocates and has helped fuel further friction, and we could use LESS of that.

    However the 'Clang is quickly replacing GCC' line... 'quickly'? He even states later in the 'article' that the switch has been ongoing since 2009 !

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Licence purists, sure. But really even though Clang/LLVM produces less performant code (~5-15%) it's certainly anything but a 'shit' compiler.

    However since FreeBSD would not ship any GPLv3 licenced code (due to their corporate sponsors/customers iirc) they were stuck on GCC 4.2 which is like what, 5 years old now? So it's not surprising that the second that Clang/LLVM showed up they decided to switch, not only is it a better compiler than the ~5 year old GCC 4.2 they are stuck with, it also in line with their licence ideology. The transition has taken quite some time due to Clang/LLVM's lack of maturity but it will eventually happen in full. I see this as a good thing, I think the BSD's having to rely on GPL licenced code all these years (particularly in such an important area as the compiler toolchain) has been a sore point for the BSD advocates and has helped fuel further friction, and we could use LESS of that.

    However the 'Clang is quickly replacing GCC' line... 'quickly'? He even states later in the 'article' that the switch has been ongoing since 2009 !
    It is far slower than that in most cases. 5-15% my ass.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxID10T View Post
    It is far slower than that in most cases. 5-15% my ass.
    Not unless I employ optimizations not available in Clang/LLVM, like profile guided optimization or openmp in which case yes GCC often runs circles around Clang/LLVM but it's a bit 'unfair' as these are rather 'exotic' optimizations not always in use and also that they will eventually make their way into Clang/LLVM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    In FreeBSD's case, I think the reason they want Clang/LLVM is because they're license purists. Yes, they seriously would rather take a compiler producing shit for code output (very large and very slow binaries) over a GPLed compiler.
    I believe it's a bit more specific -- BSD guys object to GPL 3. GCC was tolerated while it was GPL 2, but the BSD crowd is quite hostile towards GPL 3.

    Personally, I find it a bit sad that they're content to ride behind Apple and eat their left-overs instead of riding with us Linux folks.

Posting Permissions

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