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 275596
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

Don't use the words "actually" ;)

I got in an interesting flame war on what was native vs available to a Distribution, and that was on a meta Distibution where *nothing* is the default install. I'm not having another one to with what constitutes a port vs default install, because the bottom line is I don't care. I personally am more interested in the component parts of what makes up my own mythical meta-distribution, and selecting the parts that fit my needs. If you want to run without a full desktop GPL solution of either KDE Gnome or Xfce.

If you want to play some elitist Distro rubbish with me you have picked the wrong person. Go away.

Reply Parent Score: 0

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

If you want to play some elitist Distro rubbish with me you have picked the wrong person. Go away.

"""

Don't you think you are overreacting a bit to bluenosejake's very reasonable correction to your claim? Especially since he is verifiably correct. There is nothing elitist about making a factual correction regarding an erroneous claim that was central to your post.

Reply Parent Score: 2

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I will repeat myself I have begged pleaded. Leave me alone. I *never* understood the reasoning for your relentless attacks on the FSF and Richard Stallman. Now I am experiencing them first hand I know your reasons well enough.

This low level intimidation needs to stop.

Reply Parent Score: 0

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"I'm not having another one to with what constitutes a port vs default install, because the bottom line is I don't care"

It's easy to ignore the truth of something if you don't care.

"If you want to play some elitist Distro rubbish with me you have picked the wrong person. Go away."

I wasn't playing any elitist games, I was correcting an error you made. If you can't take getting corrected or being disagreed with, better cancel your internet account and turn your computer off.

Reply Parent Score: 2

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Actually I wrote "I don't care" because I don't.

I wrote "go away" because I didn't think is was either a good or strong point, and I didn't want to get into a flame war about something I consider trivial....or even relevant to the point my original comment made.

If you have a point its that BSD does not have a "fully functional BSD only Desktop environment" or "BSD is not ready for the Desktop" you have made it. If your are trying to differentiate between a port...and a native application. Its lost on me, all I see is "work has been done so it works on that platform"...but after that I don't care. This is "open-source" whether its BSD or GPL. Doom runs on every platform under the Sun, it has been "ported to those platforms"...lovely. Isn't open-source great. I would say that doom runs "natively" on these platforms *once* it has been ported. I would even say that Doom is *cross-platform*. I would never say that Doom is a "port" unless I was trying to make a *point*.

So lets get back to your point, what is is it!? Its not just you trying to make a point. I think BSD Distributions are. I know its a port(sic) because I explain my mythical-meta-distribution and use the BSD+X+XFCE+Firefox+OpenOffice as an example and looked up the software that runs native on these platforms and gnome has a massive section on the freeBSD site. I think the mentality of "this is my stuff and this is your stuff...but to function we need some of your stuff we will call that stuff a port, and just have a minimal install we can label an OS" is just a desperate. I personally think its backward thinking. I think the goal should be the 95% market share occupied by Microsoft rather than argue about the 0.1 0.01 occupied by GNU/Linux;BSD;Solaris based distributions. Think about my comment on "elitest games"

If you have a truth(sic) its not *MY* truth. If you think *that* your truth is worth your internet account...or even switching on your computer more power to you, but as I said *I Don't Care* have your kernel+CLI tools elitest pissing contest away from me. I'll just continue using my end-to-end fully functioning Desktop solution that comes under at at least 50 different licenses.

Now you don't have to "Go away" because I am. I don't care for this pettiness.

Edited 2007-10-02 18:47

Reply Parent Score: 1