Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Apple/LLVM and Clang/LLVM

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    646

    Default

    I'd say as Vim_User, as stated in the links below, the released versions may be different (as, code taken at different time), but it's the same project.
    http://developer.apple.com/library/m...1/clang.1.html
    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1...nd-apple-clang

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anandh View Post
    @Vim_user, erandorn, Thanks for the clarification. In the link wwwdotstroustrupdotcom/compilers.html, stroustrup talks about different compilers for C++ and he mentions AppleC++ and ClangC++.. This is where my confustion started. Can you throw some light on this?

    Thanks / Anandh
    Apple LLVM Compiler != clang / llvm from llvm.org.

    For example, Apple LLVM Compiler 3.1 is a modified version of LLVM between 3.0 and 3.1. Modifications are closed source.
    This is possible, because LLVM and CLANG are BSD licensed. This is something predicted because its BSD licensed thing.

    Apple LLVM is optimized for Apple platform. The results produced from both stacks can vary.

    I would use GCC, because it produces much faster binary for much more platforms, the compiler is GPL licensed - no buggy(open)/working(closed source) split present as with LLVM. The pro's of LLVM is that its modular and as such its to IR parsers are more capable to identify syntax bugs correctly.

    I would not consider LLVM to be a serious solution at any timepoint, just as I don't consider BSD to be anything serious unlike MacOSX for desktops and Linux for desktops and servers.

    But if you want to work gratis for Apple, you can ofc contribute to LLVM. Btw, GPL which unlike BSD really protects freedom of subject it covers, is banned from Apple.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    I would use GCC, because it produces much faster binary
    Source?
    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    for much more platforms,
    Which ones do you assume the OP is missing?

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    ... - no buggy(open)/working(closed source) split present as with LLVM.
    Source?

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    But if you want to work gratis for Apple, you can ofc contribute to LLVM.
    While Apple will work gratis for you.. not so bad.

    Please stop trolling, and besides the OP already stated that (s)he wasn't interested in that kind of "discussion".

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    Please stop trolling, and besides the OP already stated that (s)he wasn't interested in that kind of "discussion".
    Where is trolling? Your "source" questions?

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    I would use GCC, because it produces much faster binary
    Source?
    Not source, binary.

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    Which ones do you assume the OP is missing?
    Troll. It is fact GCC supports much more platforms, it is feature - not everyone needs all features. For example LLVM is miles behind GCC in speed, not everyone one needs speed as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    no buggy(open)/working(closed source) split present as with LLVM.
    Source?
    Here and here - "License: Proprietary freeware with opensource components".

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    While Apple will work gratis for you.. not so bad.
    1) Its not my problem how Apple does business.
    2) Apple banned GPL, so Apple is not my problem as well.
    3) I don't use Apple either, not my problem.
    4) If Apple cared, they'd modularize GNU GCC or use any copyleft license. I see LLVM strictly as opencore - opencore concept is "rip off what you can". So, why bother?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anandh View Post
    Systemed rulz, My question is not related anything with GCC or which compiler is best. My question is all about the difference between Clang::LLVM and Apple::LLVM-if there is or both are same. please reply only if you can answer anything relevant to the question of this thread.
    Apple's LLVM is just a branch of upstream Clang/LLVM. Upstream may have more bug fixes or performance work that Apple's branches lack, since most work happens on the main branch. Apple's branch may have some new OS X or iOS fixes, which get upstreamed in most cases (saves them work in the long run to do so).

    In general, it's like a distribution's Linux kernel. Same thing, but older and maybe with some distro-specific patches that generally get upstreamed eventually.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    1) Its not my problem how Apple does business.
    2) Apple banned GPL, so Apple is not my problem as well.
    3) I don't use Apple either, not my problem.
    4) If Apple cared, they'd modularize GNU GCC or use any copyleft license. I see LLVM strictly as opencore - opencore concept is "rip off what you can". So, why bother?
    For what it's worth, I don't think any company "bans" GPL -- they're just complying with the terms of the GPL license by making sure they don't mix GPL-licensed code in with proprietary-licensed code.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    For what it's worth, I don't think any company "bans" GPL -- they're just complying with the terms of the GPL license by making sure they don't mix GPL-licensed code in with proprietary-licensed code.
    The TOS for the iTunes Store and the App Store from Apple are not GPL compatible, which caused GPL licensed software to be removed from them: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/...pl-enforcement

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    The TOS for the iTunes Store and the App Store from Apple are not GPL compatible, which caused GPL licensed software to be removed from them: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/...pl-enforcement
    Interesting, so the TOS's don't have a carve-out for free software. Didn't know about that, thanks !

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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