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 275717
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

So lets get back to your point, what is is it!?

"""

If you'll recall, he was not pushing an agenda, but pointing out a significant and verifiable factual error you had made while pushing yours.

His advice about dealing well with being corrected and disagreed with is on the mark, and we could all benefit from it at times.

Edited 2007-10-02 19:02

Reply Parent Score: 1

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"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."

Uh, anything in the ports system a native application, or one that runs under linux compatibility, but the difference is that FreeBSD.org does not maintain it, just like MS does not maintain Firefox, and makes no warranty or support offers for it. It's maintained BY OTHER PEOPLE.

That's the difference, just like GCC is maintained by other people. That doesn't make it not native, it makes it somebody else's responsibility.

I think the division between FreeBSD and Ports make sense. It allows them to work on what makes FreeBSD great, the kernel and the userland utilities. Let other people supply the apps. That's the way it works on other OS's

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

I'm not sure why I am being petty, I think I am being reasonable. I think you better read back through this discussion and see who has been acting petty.

Reply Parent Score: 2