Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Moving Towards Building The Linux Kernel With Clang

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    831

    Default

    So basicly its 99% the lisence that drives this project am I right?

    I mean yes its nice to have some cool features and stuff, but if you really dont care about speed why the hell would you wann use C? Then you would use python/javascript or something like that. But for some parts speed matters, and then in most cases 10% more speed or less matters also. So if thats right and the benchmarks are true that in 99% of the cases this new compiler results in noticable slower blobs, I dont see much usecases.

    Or is it guarantied that you can take code that runs with this compiler and compile it for production systems than without any code changes with gcc? Than you could maybe use that for having better developer-experience and in the end compile it with gcc so the end users get the speed on this parts that are written in C to have speed. (The only reason a sane person would write code in C).

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    688

    Default

    Maybe they are aiming for GCC like speed with a cleaner code base, and that is what drives them...

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJenbo View Post
    For a GPL licenced product it would either be released as open source of not made in the first place. So the same or better then non-GPLed.


    The project would have gone down a different path that didn't require this (probably because of copyright), or dropped long ago saving lots of waisted time. So better then the non-GPLed.
    Sure, "not made" is always a good state for a component. A bit short on the usefulness, but full of potential

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Partially incorrect.

    Completely correct, that *any* GPL is banned on Apple market.

    ...

    The real reason is quite simple - GCC is built and licensed from ground up in a way to prevent closing itself, or parts of it, or its extensions down.

    Apple can easily use some closed source LLVM extension to build its own parts, and you will be required to purchase it and be dependent on it.
    This is why I don't like LLVM/Clang (and one of the main reasons I don't like Apple).

    I'm not going to say all proprietary software is bad, but it does not belong in this environment, nor does the enablement of it (things like LLVM/Clang).
    Last edited by fuzz; 11-05-2012 at 01:44 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    343

    Default

    I still laugh when people thinking that only having one compiler able to compile the linux kernel is a good idea...

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Partially incorrect.

    Completely correct, that *any* GPL is banned on Apple market.

    But remember, you don't need to opensource *ANYTHING* you build with GCC. This is sad, but it is fair and true.

    The real reason is quite simple - GCC is built and licensed from ground up in a way to prevent closing itself, or parts of it, or its extensions down.

    Apple can easily use some closed source LLVM extension to build its own parts, and you will be required to purchase it and be dependent on it.
    How will you be required to pay for it??
    LLVM is BSD licensed, and as long as the Copyright holder(which isn't Apple) doesn't change the license, it will ever be. And thus, LLVM will ever be an opensource project.
    Anything Apple can do is take the code from LLVM, modify it, and distribute it how they want. However, that again doesn't change the license of LLVM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    1) BSD allows closed source software. Promoting would suggests that it is easier to write closed extensions on BSD code than open source extensions, which certainly isn't the case.
    I repeat yet again - BSD PROMOTES CLOSED SOURCE SOFTWARE.

    GPL allows closed source software.

    Nothing in BSD will prevent closing down. Everything in GPL is designed to keep seperate from closed source.

    BSD is not free software, it is "public software", public domain plus small copyright notice.

    This is the single difference that results in 3 clause vs 5 page license difference.

    Pay attention to MacOSX, its in essence a stolen BSD.

    And BSD crowd is trolling Linux, how them should be desktop OS too and how Linux prevents it. This is ridiculous they don't storm Apple for some things to put back! They are what their license is.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BitRot View Post
    How will you be required to pay for it??
    LLVM is BSD licensed, and as long as the Copyright holder(which isn't Apple) doesn't change the license, it will ever be. And thus, LLVM will ever be an opensource project.
    Anything Apple can do is take the code from LLVM, modify it, and distribute it how they want. However, that again doesn't change the license of LLVM.
    How are apple users required to pay for DRMed MacOSX, when its simply BSD-licensed BSD?

    Easy. Proprietary modules above and between, which are strategically important.

    This is not critical, unless you actually NEED Apple to work. At this point, the "free version" is useless. Just as Darwin.

    Quote Originally Posted by fuzz View Post
    I'm not going to say all proprietary software is bad, but it does not belong in this environment, nor does the enablement of it (things like LLVM/Clang).
    Acknowledging all its cons, proprietary software is fine, unless it is aggressive or trying to become a vital part. Which many actually *try*, because if one is vital and costs money, the whole crowd will stream through it and the coins will sing in the water trader pocket. As well as control, since its about IT and not generic product trading.
    Last edited by crazycheese; 11-05-2012 at 06:35 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    It embodies everything that is wrong with "free" software. From the idiotic bureaucracy of the steering committee to the horrible code documentation to the inability to address bugs in a timely manner to the rejection of bugfixes because of who wrote them.

    It's a bloated steaming pile of stuff even without the idiocy of gpl zealots that left people with a choice, fork gcc (again) or start a new compiler from scratch.
    hmm, sounds like windows you are talking about... but it can*t be as you are talking about somthing like oss.... strange.

    oh you mean internet explorer... oh wait, also not open source... dammit! gimme some minutes, i'll be back.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    Ok so let's say there is a proprietary extension in LLVM, two cases:
    - open source developers can write the same thing. They write it, and continue to use LLVM. It costs them the same amount of work than if the project was GPLed.
    - open source devs cannot write the same thing. They don't, and they still couldn't have written it if the project was GPLed. Still the same situation as if the project was GPLed.
    The key aspect is that closed source components written to block other actors are never open sourced. Corporations in that position prefer to rewrite/buy elsewhere the whole thing anyway than make such sacrifices.
    Please read Adobe Flash license. Short version: if you ever used any Flash component (including Player), you agreed to License conditions. One of the conditions is - you may neither reverse engineer, nor create any clean reimplementation of it. Once you used it even once, you can't rewrite it.

    And then, there is this patent thingy. Real cheap if you are a corporation.
    This cancels out your first variant.

    However, if the license didn't have this clause, should they need it, they would rewrite it, since they are not bound by agreements.

    And then the precedent is still not happened, the bomb is ticking, until then its just enough to know that its lying there waiting for the day.

    And yes, from the technical side, its always good to rewrite the stuff once more to get rid of deep architectural mistakes, and having one more compiler with unique build-up is a good thing.

Posting Permissions

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