Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Oct 2010 19:10 UTC, submitted by tyrione
General Development LLVM 2.8 has been released. The release notes describe this new, ehm, release in greater detail, so head on over and give it a read.
Thread beginning with comment 444471
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 8th Oct 2010 04:58 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

What I'm really surprised about is how quickly they got C++ support in it given that many compilers even to this day their compilers fail to conform to many of the C++ standards that have existed for many years. Hopefully more operating systems will jump on board and expand the support further; maybe we'll see LLVM/Clang become the official compiler for *BSD's and their ports some time in the future, with many of the GNU/GCC'isms finally removed from open source code and replaced with open standards code that allow it to be compiled with any compiler.

Edited 2010-10-08 05:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Fri 8th Oct 2010 05:20 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

with many of the GNU/GCC'isms finally removed from open source code and replaced with open standards code that allow it to be compiled with any compiler.

Problem is, the C++ standard lacks some very useful things like the __attribute__ ((packed)) of GCC, which prove to be mandatory under certain circumstances. And a stdint header like that of C99, too, I'm tired of defining uintX_t myself in a compiler-specific fashion.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 8th Oct 2010 06:59 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Problem is, the C++ standard lacks some very useful things like the __attribute__ ((packed)) of GCC, which prove to be mandatory under certain circumstances. And a stdint header like that of C99, too, I'm tired of defining uintX_t myself in a compiler-specific fashion.


I know it is a pain in the rear that the standard lacks some niceties but I'd sooner that people wrote code according to the standard, even if it means they have to write an extra 1000 lines of code simply for the sake of being able to pick up any compiler and it all works nicely because the programmer chose to stick to the straight and narrow.

How was it done before these features appeared? they wrote it out the long way - time to go back to the good old days instead of looking for quick and dirty short cuts that create giant clusterfucks when it comes to code portability.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by phoenix on Fri 8th Oct 2010 05:20 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Clang has been committed to FreeBSD -CURRENT, and can compile the kernel + world. Not quite ready for the ports tree, but one can boot and use a FreeBSD system compiled twice by Clang. ;) It's self-hosting!!

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 8th Oct 2010 07:04 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Clang has been committed to FreeBSD -CURRENT, and can compile the kernel + world. Not quite ready for the ports tree, but one can boot and use a FreeBSD system compiled twice by Clang. ;) It's self-hosting!!


But in terms of compiling the ports they aren't there yet because so many of the ports rely on GNU/GCC'isms that result in compilation fails. Maybe with the rise of a standards compliant compiler we'll see open source developers more attuned to writing their code according to those standards rather than using nasty hacks and work arounds.

Here is a sneak peak as to FreeBSD 9.0 features:

http://ivoras.sharanet.org/freebsd/freebsd9.html

The big thing I'm looking for, along side better hardware support, is tickless kernel support as to improve the over all battery life/power management. What FreeBSD really does need is to remove HAL and provide a native FreeBSD back end to both GNOME and KDE rather than the situation now which is the worst of both worlds and none of the benefits.

Reply Parent Score: 1