Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 94

Thread: FreeBSD 10 To Use Clang Compiler, Deprecate GCC

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    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.
    What the hell are you saying? Being a Linux user doesn't bloody means that you have to stick with GCC or anything FSF. LLVM/Clang is licensed in "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License" which is BSD-like license and that's a Free software license. I don't want to get into that debate that always pops in about GPL vs BSD.

    All that I can say is that Free as in a freedom (libre) is about choice. And BSD people are using it. I see no problem with that. Also, competition is always good so if this helps to push GCC to improve that's welcome. And I see no problems either if this ends up with Clang replacing GCC in any of the 'base' linux distros (RHEL, Debian, SuSE).

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    Default

    I have no problem with Clang being BSD licensed and I welcome more Free and Open options in terms of compilers.

    I'm just uneasy with the religious and sectarian motivation for dumping GCC at all costs, spearheaded by Apple and seemingly followed by some BSD folks.

    Clang is not replacing GCC because it is a better compiler. It is not a better compiler NOW.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    391

    Default

    I'm using Clang on Linux, OpenBSD and Windows.
    It might be slower than GCC in general, but my code is always faster and smaller with Clang.
    Also compile errors and warnings are much better in Clang.

    Why all that trolling about how GCC is superior to Clang?
    Alternatives are a good thing.
    Last edited by LightBit; 05-13-2012 at 01:12 PM.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    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.
    They were never with Linux, but with Microsoft and Apple. MS and Apple hate Linux, but they love BSD, because it can't compete in any term.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    Why all that trolling about how GCC is superior to Clang?
    Alternatives are a good thing.
    There's usually more trolling about GCC and GCC is superior in many things to Clang. Btw. Michael behaves like he was paid by Apple sometimes. He advertises Apple's Clang/llvm, iPhone, he's using OS X, but he's driving a Linux centered site same time. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    7

    Default Clang - It's like watching kids scramble to get the latest crap-phone.

    LLVM/Clang is:
    * still _MUCH_ slower than GCC.
    * Does not build on nearly as many architectures OS combos as GCC do.
    * Does not compile a lot of code correctly (even without specific GCC extensions).

    I will repeat this.

    LLVM/Clang IS A TOY COMPILER.

    I do not use compilers to debug them while I try to produce working code.
    I don't want to shift to something CRAPPIER because it's new.

    It's like watching kids scramble to get the latest crap-phone only to get screwed by the telcos.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    542

    Default

    As someone who is using gcc and llvm/clang on a daily basis I have to tell you that your post is telling more about you than about llvm. ROFL.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    They were never with Linux, but with Microsoft and Apple. MS and Apple hate Linux, but they love BSD, because it can't compete in any term.
    Maybe, they were never with Linux, because Linux hates BSD. I also don't see how BSD is with Microsoft. Apple and Microsoft love BSD, because of license.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    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.
    Next time check your facts. A lot of BSD people are employed by Apple. THEY brought BSD attitude into Apple. THEY are the reason any newly released source code by Apple is not under APSL 1.0 but usually a BSD-like license or Apache License 2 – incl. OpenBSM which is fully BSD-licensed. Those aren't leftovers by Apple, those are active contributions by Apple to the other BSDs.

    If you don't like “Apple leftovers”, stop using CUPS, WebKit, etc. under Linux.

Posting Permissions

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