Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Sep 2007 21:26 UTC, submitted by Chris Lattner
General Development The LLVM Project recently released a new version of their compiler, optimizer and code generators. LLVM includes a drop-in GCC-compatible C/C++ and ObjC compiler, mature optimization technology (including cross file/whole program optimization), and a highly optimizing code generator. For people who enjoy hacking on compilers and runtimes, LLVM provides libraries for implementing custom optimizers and code generators including JIT compiler support. This release is the first to provide beta GCC 4.2 compatibility as well as the new "clang" C/ObjC front-end, which provides capabilities to build source-to-source translators and many other tools.
Thread beginning with comment 275299
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: CLANG GNU's GCC Replacement
by cyclops on Sun 30th Sep 2007 00:23 UTC in reply to "CLANG GNU's GCC Replacement"
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

..or we could look at how LLVM *compliments* GCC, Or we could focus on how open-source compilers rival *commercial proprietary* compilers, or we could look at how for 20 years that a project started by Richard Stillman has been an intregal component of BSD kernel distributions, and is set to continue for some time.

oh I forgot its much better to have another smack down over the benefits of copyleft vs permissive licenses.

Reply Parent Score: 22

Chezz Member since:
2005-07-11

I agree with your comment but I was talking about "CLANG" not the "LLVM-GCC" part.

* added a missing word.

Edited 2007-09-30 02:06

Reply Parent Score: 1

kwag Member since:
2006-08-31

"or we could look at how for 20 years that a project started by Richard Stillman has been an intregal component of BSD kernel distributions"

There's not a *Single* line of GNU/GPL in ANY of the *BSD kernels!
GCC simply *Compiles* the BSD sources and makes binary code.

Thanks.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

BSD kernel distributions. In other words, the various BSD OSes, which (as you mention) use GCC.

Reply Parent Score: 7

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

No thank you. You misread me if you *re-read the quote* you will see that it says "BSD kernel distributions" which all contain GCC and Gnome and ... well you get my point, and all are *compiled* with GCC.

I make the point with no smack down. I use a kernel that Thom regularly advertised as *using* code from the BSD kernels, Every Linux based Distribution comes with X(ok not quite BSD).

Although I thank you again for *stressing* a different but supporting point as to why this should not be used in any smack down on different kernel licenses.

I personally think there is more to celebrate with successful open source applications that *compete* with proprietary ones like that of Firefox(under the Mozilla License) or when *binary proprietary blobs* are finally removed that damage all open platforms like that of Gnash by the FSF.

...Its not that I don't care about the license I think their are better points to be made about LLVM as being a replacement for GCC(it isn't check the slides) on BSD distributions. In fact if you click the link and look at the slides you will actually see quite a few *real* advantages to both clang and LLVM over their selected parts of GCC both technical *and* even some related to the license...and some disadvantages.

Edited 2007-09-30 02:45

Reply Parent Score: 4

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I understand where you're coming from but nobody ever said that there's GPL'd code in BSD. In fact, if there was any GPL'd code used in say the NetBSD kernel, it would no longer be BSD.

On the other hand, it is with the help of a fellow opnsource project, namely the GNU C compiler, that other opensource projects, in this case the BSDs, can build they're systems without having to buy expensive compilers. As far as I'm concerned, that's a win-win situation.

I'm happy to hear that there are compilers being release that are more in line with the BSD philosophy, but that hardly means that GCC should not be valued for it's prior usefulness.

Reply Parent Score: 8

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

oh I forgot its much better to have another smack down over the benefits of copyleft vs permissive licenses.


Mate, its not that.

Talk to Sun, Apple and many other vendors who have tried to get patches merged which fix bone head stupid bugs - GCC maintainers refuse to merge it. There isn't a thing they can do but either absorb the extra costs of manually patching and compiling or simply stop providing GCC for their platforms - then we all suffer because of it.

GCC maintainers don't want to accept there could be some issues that need to be addresed; gcc to them is like a sacred cow; perish the thought that there are bugs and patches might get submitted by those out side the "Illuminati" and actually help develop GCC.

I just hope that if GCC developers keep messing around companies, the likes of Sun turn around and throw their weight behind LLVM.

Reply Parent Score: 5

theine Member since:
2005-09-29

Talk to Sun, Apple and many other vendors who have tried to get patches merged which fix bone head stupid bugs - GCC maintainers refuse to merge it.

Can you provide an example of this happening?

Reply Parent Score: 4

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

It is my opinion that there should be at least two major FOSS players (with a strong commitment to standards, interoperability, and compatibility) in any given area. GCC needs some competition. Sure, multiple projects results in a division of resources, and some people don't like that. But look how dividing the resources between XFree86 and Xorg worked out for us.

Reply Parent Score: 3