GCC BTFO

OpenBSD switches to Clang.

marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=150109829003860&w=2

Next up, Linux!

Other urls found in this thread:

llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page
youtube.com/watch?v=UtwaK-s9QRI
gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc7-clang4-jan&num=1
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GCC-Clang-Core-i9-Clear-Linux
mappingthejourney.com/single-post/2017/07/06/Episode-4-Interview-with-George-Neville-Neil-President-of-FreeBSD
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc7-clang4-jan&num=1
man.cat-v.org/plan_9/1/2c
harmful.cat-v.org/software/GCC
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Linux would require a total rewrite to remove GCC dependency.

It's not going to happen.

someone said linux was switching to rust

>openbsd

Who gives a fuck?

Linux will very likely never switch because GCC might as well be called Linux Compiler

Sometime next year we will have the apple iBSD and iBSD Pro, then they will release a slimmed down budget version called ibs. The only color options for this one will be brown.

Of course, as the biggest BSD project (FreeBSD) switched to it a few years ago. Maintainers would have more work to do bug / audit wise if they used a different compiler than their counterparts.

This /thread

No. Nobody said that.

>Linux would require a total rewrite to remove GCC dependency.
There are already patches for that.

llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page

Once they switch, they'll slowly eliminate the need for these patches.

Stallman would shit a brick if it happened given his views on proprietary clang extensions

Didn't they manage to compile linux with it once ?

The only thing worth switching to is LLD, the linker, and that's if you don't need to use a linker for something outside of ELF, Mach-O, or PE object code, and Mach-O apparently isn't ready yet.

Gold is way too big, and doesn't thread by default like LLD does. And BFD linker is way too slow.

Well clang would have never been necessary if it weren't for all the GPL anti-use bullshit
And also everything cross-compiling because somehow gcc actually managed to fuck that up

All that extra crud to account for GCC bugs must be slowing down Linux kernel by some percentage. If they didn't have all that stuff, compiler could optimize things a lot better.

>All three OpenBSD installations switch to Clang

>Linux would require a total rewrite to remove GCC dependency.
This is flat out wrong. All the points where Linux relies on GCC specific behavior are documented and patches exist to switch them to Clang. People have already compiled the Linux kernel with Clang before, it's just not the default and it requires a few patches.

youtube.com/watch?v=UtwaK-s9QRI

you're a moron if you think that's nothing. clang is superior to gcc us every which way possible. GNU should be terrified of this recent trend.

Stallman made a huge mistake when he didn't accept LLVM under FSF.

LLVM is being supported by Apple and Google and it's becoming ridiculously better at everything.

>richard turdman
kek'd

This. People are already compiling Linux with Clang, but Torvalds and his gang of rascals have no intention of moving.

llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page

Stallman has next to nothing to do with GCC anymore. After GCC merged with EGCS, plugins are fully supported.

GCC is written in C and maintained by purists

clang + LLVM is written in C++ and managed by Apple and Jewgle

Checkmate atheists

>bbbut GPL is great!!!

I have nothing against LLVM or BSD license for that matter, I like clang more than gcc and I think competition is good for everyone. My point is, whatever compiler OpenBSD uses hardly matters because the actual installation base is so small.

It is great, if you're not a cuck for the proprietary cock.

good i haven't installed this shit on disk but rather a virtual machine

i'd be mad to just have had installer 6.1 and read that, oh, we're gonna depart from our april 2017 to llvm as of august because cocks.

although i suppose they won't make a new obsd version up until next 2 years

GCC switched to C++ as the development language 5 years ago, m8, both major C compilers are written in C++ now.

>clang is superior to gcc us every which way possible.
Proofs?

GCC simply use C++ compiler for two features. There's extremely little C++ code in the source code.

Yes goyim, promote clang, work for google and apple FOR FREE.

Kill yourselves, dumb shits.

gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

Yes, but most rational use of C++ boils down to this anyway.

That would piss stallman off to an unimaginable extent

They strictly use C++98 and they only use it for proper long long support and vectors, I hardly see why this would justify using C++ at all.

Does this mean they'll drop gcc though? My initial thought was it would be so cool to have an OS supports multiple compilers. Not sure how it hard it would be, but I heard OpenBSD has a pretty good codebase. I think a couple of #ifdef GCC's would be fine.

Another day, another gpl software going to trash

They used an age-old GCC because of licensing issues. Would only make sense to drop it one day as that thing sure is a maintaince burden.

It's better at some things, worse at others.
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc7-clang4-jan&num=1

There is a project for compiling linux with clang. They don't joking as its somewhat werks with some patch.

The only reason OpenBSD refused to switch to clang a long time ago was they wanted their source base to be entirely written in C, Perl and Ksh.

>amd64 and i386
The switch...

Reminder these threads are shilled by a corporation trying to make everything BSD, bashing anything with GPL.

>The only reason
That would be nice, but clang support (tier one level) way less platforms than openbsd.

> LLVM is being supported by Apple and Google
A good reason to avoid that.

> they wanted their source base to be entirely written in C, Perl and Ksh
bsd-tards will defend this.

Nothing wrong with perl and korn shell is free software.

I was referring solely to the x86 based builds.

>gcc4 in the build for these as well
Yeah, BTFO. :^^^)

I said it.

>and it's becoming ridiculously better at everything.
Ridiculously better at (((spyware))) maybe.

>clang is superior
It's the same shit. Intel have a better compiler for brainlets.

When did you take your Foss pill?
When did you woke?

i dont think you can compile the kernel with clang , not yet at least

>GPL anti-use bullshit
GPL is a distribution license, not a usage license. You can use GPLed code however you like so long as you don't distribute it.

BSD license lets you get cucked by corporations who take your code and make it proprietary and give you nothing in return. GPL keeps your code Free for everybody.

>clang is superior to gcc
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GCC-Clang-Core-i9-Clear-Linux

Clang is faster for: SQLite
GCC is faster for: FFTW, TTSIOD, Himeno, C-Ray, Lame

GCC wins. Phoronix does a shitload of these tests and that's how it usually goes. LLVM wins some, GCC wins some, but GCC wins more.

the patches are dead

What if the author don't give a shit about the closed fork of his project? Just don't justify it like the freebsd guy in this podcast with shitty excuses with nonexistent contributions.

mappingthejourney.com/single-post/2017/07/06/Episode-4-Interview-with-George-Neville-Neil-President-of-FreeBSD

Wasn't that Phoronix guy trying to shill clang? I remember some sketchy stuff...

Nope. GCC uses C++03.

I see nothing wrong with taking good code and improving it. You just hide your inferiority behind GPL.

freetards are just too insecure to compete with proprietary products, as usual.

look at gimp, GPL and it's nowhere near photoshop in terms of quality

BSD license lets you hide inferiority. GPL code is always Free Software so nothing is hidden.

Actually gcc has caught up a lot. Five years ago it was much better now it is marginally better.

> hide inferiority
If you want to hide it why give it a license at all?

>corporations are stealing my """inferior""" code

>gcc
>2017

it just works

>an OS no one cares about switches to a compiler no one cares about

>Clang
>100% C++ cancer
>GCC
>Mostly C, has some C++ but also some FORTRAN

Yea Clang is totally better...

>one cares about
nice meme retard.

Linux is just a few patches away from working with clang. Once clang works with linux the gcc extensions can be phased out.

Allows C++ PRs != C++ is main development language

Tell me when clang can generate faster code across the board than gcc.
Maybe in 5 year, but sure as fuck not now.

Care to post the source? I'm actually interested in the progress they made and the LLVMLinux site hasn't been updated in ages.

Didin't android deprecate gcc as compiler for it? Now you should be using clang to build android I think. But how does that work if android still uses linux and linux doesn't even compile with clang?

Stallman can suck a dick.

In fact, making it compile on clang will annoy RMS? Then fucking make it!

>guy who is reason for the open source today and his compiler and userland tools are still used
>let's do anything our power to annoy him!
why, though?

>guy who is the reason open source is shit today and his compiler and userland tools are still holding back technological progress

They are used because they work.
You are free to make better ones, know that industry changes very slowly.

>holding back technological progress
How?

gcc is absolutely disgusting, but clang isn't much better

>Tell me when clang can generate faster code across the board than gcc.
Is this a bait or are you just retarded?

phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc7-clang4-jan&num=1

Yeah, no shit. Alternatives exist in the hundreds, and a significant reason why people don't switch to them is the established reputation of sanctity of GNU/FSF. And that's without even mentioning the GPL and the myriad of projects it killed due to petty licensing bullshit.

>being this mad nobody cares about your shitty BSD-lisenced strlen implementation

So what are the objective arguments for and against gcc and clang?

>gcc
BSD-faggots hurt their feelings
>clang
Developed by apple and at any point they might do something really radical to it.
Also the API keeps changing every fucking update, fuck.

>>clang
>Developed by apple
So it's likely shit. Is it still proper free software at least?

As opposed to...

>Is it still proper free software at least
It is.

No, Linux is switching to JUST

>useless os becomes even more useless in the name of security
whew

Yes this is what rust cultists actually believe

tcc

tcc
plan 9's compiler collection ( man.cat-v.org/plan_9/1/2c )
unix compiler

>gcc
harmful.cat-v.org/software/GCC
>clang
basically a c front end for llvm. t.b.h. nothing really wrong

anyone know if the choice is due to licensing ideology, or technical reasons?

The first, that's why they were still on GCC4, GCC switched to GPLv3 after that.

>phoronix
Did you intend this to be taken seriously?

Not him, but is there a version of tcc that's still maintained? The original dev's site hasn't said a word on it since 2013. Is there a fork or something I don't know about?

not an argument. show me better tests. and phoronix is the premier open source and Linux news and advocacy website.

is it read "klang" or "sea-lang"?

It's pronounced "clang"

>klang
this.
I watched a bunch of videos from conferences and everyone calls it klang.