Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Clang will now be default compiler

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 15:08

FreeBSD 10 To Use Clang Compiler, Deprecate GCC

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTEwMjI

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.

While the Q1-2012 FreeBSD Status Report was just talked about in the afore-linked article, the Clang and C++ items warranted their own more detailed article.

Going back to 2009, FreeBSD developers have worked to replace GCC with LLVM/Clang. Over time, there's been numerous improvements especially with the FreeBSD 9.0 release. The FreeBSD developers are interested in doing away with the GPL-licensed GNU Compiler Collection and instead use the Apple-sponsored LLVM/Clang work that's under a BSD-like license.

GCC is garbage, stop using it!

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 15:11

Garbage. Sure. Let's use Turbo C instead.

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 15:19

Soon, Debian and derivatives will use Clang as the default compiler too.

http://clang.debian.net/

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 15:24

OpenWatcom is the best compiler. It can even generate 16bit binaries. Can your piece of shit optimize enough to pack everything in just 16 bits? Fuck no it can't. Use OpenWatcom.

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 15:31

So now all their programs are going to be 20% slower? Well, at least they're secure I guess.

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 16:59

>>5
Latest Clang/LLVM is now faster than GCC 4.4/4.5 and is within earshot of GCC 4.6/4.7.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA5Nzc

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 17:03

I wonder what RMS thinks about this.

Name: VIPPER 2012-05-13 18:12

>>4
But it breaks during linking on x86 elf. :(

Really sucks as watcom is pretty decent.

Also GCC was always garbage, but that didnt stop people from using it, that was only because they had no real choice.

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 19:44

>> now you're being just a shithead with no proof what so ever to back your hilariously shitty arguments

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 21:57

>>7
he must be thinking about some freedom bullshit ideal...

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 22:26

>>7
Clang is an Apple product.
``I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone.''

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 22:31

>Take BSD code
>incorporate it into GCC
How is this a problem?

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 22:50

>>7
RMS has no strong opinion on Clang as he does to x.org. They are both free software and that's the biggest meaningful distinction on how to evaluate the software. GCC was started because there wasn't any free alternative. Now that Clang exists and is maturing over time, it really doesn't matter if people choose to prefer Clang over GCC.

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 22:54

>>1
What is your opinion on nasm/yasm?

>>13
Why does RMS have a strong opinion on X.org?

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 23:18

>>14
RMS doesn't have a strong opinion on the x.org X server system. The only strong opinion he has is whether the software respects the users' freedom. X.org completely respects user freedom and so RMS has no problem with x.org.

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 23:20

So… why?

>Because GCC is garbage lololo

Okay, but in what way is GCC garbage and in what way is Clang better?

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-13 23:38

>>16
RMS decided that the internals of the GCC architecture ought to be obfuscated so that proprietary software vendors would have a difficult time writing proprietary software that would interface with the GCC internals. Clang doesn't have that asinine requirement.

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-14 0:04

>>17
your full of shit

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-14 0:11

>>17
``If it was hard to write, it should be hard to read.''

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-14 0:24

>>12
Adding sugar to shit does not make it any less shitty.

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-14 2:44

>>16
GCC/glibc has suffered under the FSF's direction. That's a small reason for switching (the crux: is good enough good enough?)

The big picture is more important: without the tension of competition, GCC would only stagnate. It's a good thing that people have these reasons for using different compilers. Only with the specific pressure to make a better product can good enough actually be good enough.

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-14 2:55

msvc master race

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-14 3:15

>>22
what a waste of dubz

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-14 3:22

>>21

I guess it depends on the person what they are motivated by, but I could tell you that I would not be motivated to improve a free product because there is some other free product that is available. I suppose if someone invests their ego into a project and they want to see their product in wide use, then that would motivate them to improve the product to attract more users, and inflate their ego. But I'm not motivated by that. If I made a piece of shit that people abandoned in favor of something that is not shit, I wouldn't try to suddenly improve my piece of shit. I would contribute to whatever happens to be the most popular product, and slowly make it just as shitty as my piece of shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-14 5:09

>>24
There are a couple of problems with that. First: your product will die out if you don't compete. If you don't care, that's fine, but there is no use continuing to work on it if you can't keep it in good enough shape to maintain appeal.

The other problem is simply that your spiteful attempts to shit up the other project won't really work. You won't be able to replace existing code with broken code in the main branch effectively, and if you your new functionality which is broken is accepted it will eventually get fixed, and you've successfully scaffolded a new feature.

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-14 5:50

>>7
I wonder what RMS thinks about this.

http://www.fsf.org/news/richard-stallman-speech-in-barcelona-canceled

I guess he is upset!

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-14 5:55

>>25

right. I guess the only way would be to implement a cluster fuck of bad features, and to try to break the overall design as much as possible.

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-14 7:44

>>24
Some people contribute code for the sake of improving the community. For those people, it would be a good thing when there is some new alternative that did certain functions better because the goal of improving the community is actually happening.

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-14 15:15

>>24
cancer of /prog/

cancer of /prog/

cancer of /prog/

cancer of /prog/

CANCER OF /PROG/

CANCER OF /PROG/

CANCER OF /PROG/

WARNING!!!

WARNING!!!

WARNING!!!

WARNING!!!

WARNING!!!

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-14 21:43

they should go back to pcc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_C_Compiler

Name: bampu pantsu 2012-05-29 4:56

bampu pantsu
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -