Linked by Kroc Camen on Sat 17th Apr 2010 08:40 UTC
FreeBSD Roman Divacky on behalf of the ClangBSD team writes "ClangBSD is a branch of FreeBSD that aims at integrating clang into FreeBSD, replacing GCC as a system compiler. Recently, we've achieved the state when clang can compile all of FreeBSD world on i386/amd64 platforms (including all the C++ apps we have and itself) and a bootable kernel. Thus we feel that the time has come to ask the FreeBSD community for wider testing on i386/amd64 (you sure can help with other platforms too :))."
Thread beginning with comment 419553
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Nicholas Blachford
Member since:
2005-07-06

That's their choice. GPLv3 is not legally incompatible with BSD operating systems, it's just that current project leads don't like the license for one reason or another.


IANAL but GPLv3 is legally incompatible with a lot of things so it might actually be a legal issue. I know in the mobile industry GPLv3 is about as popular as a case of syphilis, the companies wont use it and the companies they deal with can't use it either. I personally know people who are forbidden to send out any code even just compiled with a GPLv3 compiler.

Upside of this is that it gives LLVM some testing & mindshare; downside is that FreeBSD is left behind until LLVM reaches parity with newest gcc.


Probably not for long. LLVM has mindshare from rather more then just BSD developers. There's some very big industry players contributing these days.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Competition is welcome
by Valhalla on Sun 18th Apr 2010 01:58 in reply to "RE[3]: Competition is welcome"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

I personally know people who are forbidden to send out any code even just compiled with a GPLv3 compiler.

Sorry, seriously doubt this since the licence of the compiler has no effect on the licence of the generated binary.

Probably not for long. LLVM has mindshare from rather more then just BSD developers. There's some very big industry players contributing these days.

Apart from Apple, who are the other big industry players working on llvm? I know Google uses it for certain things but I'm not sure they actually contribute to it.

Edited 2010-04-18 02:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Competition is welcome
by _txf_ on Sun 18th Apr 2010 02:15 in reply to "RE[4]: Competition is welcome"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

I'll refer you to this page:

http://llvm.org/Users.html

The most extensive user by far is Apple, whose primary goal is to have osx compiled completely by Clang and remove gcc from the equation. See this:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/9

Edited 2010-04-18 02:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Competition is welcome
by vivainio on Sun 18th Apr 2010 07:44 in reply to "RE[3]: Competition is welcome"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

I know in the mobile industry GPLv3 is about as popular as a case of syphilis, the companies wont use it and the companies they deal with can't use it either.


This makes sense for programs that are actually shipped in the devices. For a compiler, this is a knee-jerk reaction to fud (and I'm somewhat surprised that supposedly competent people fell for it).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Competition is welcome
by smitty on Sun 18th Apr 2010 08:49 in reply to "RE[4]: Competition is welcome"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

There is one valid situation when the compiler license could matter - when you're embedding it into your own project. For example, writing a graphics driver that dynamically compiles shader programs at runtime. LLVM is also designed specifically for that kind of use, while GCC isn't, so using LLVM for that is kind of a no-brainer even disregarding the license.

Other than that, for 99.9% of uses it doesn't. You can compile a BSD program from MS C compiler, or Intel's, or GCC GPL2 or GPL3 and all still come out as valid BSD software. Doesn't matter what kind of text editor or compiler you use to create the program. This is not something that lawyers even debate about, it's not controversial, it's settled fact.

Edited 2010-04-18 08:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2