Jakub Lach jakub_lach at mailplus.pl writes:
I am more concerned about an aspect of the language the clang tools are
written in, namely the use of object-oriented paradigm of c++ (it is a
phony
paradigm, one that does not exist in nature or reality, which explains
the failure rate of
programming involves many of the classic trade-offs in programming: dynamic
features add flexibility, static features add speed and type checking.
My Note: please keep in mind we are talking about language used for writing
clang, a compiler tool.
So, Objective-C has disadvantage with regard
On 25/06/2012 13:56, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
C++ libraries can be limiting, but... wasn't replaced.
If it would be truly about removing GPLv3 code that hurts, replacing
libstdc++ would be first thing to do.
I assume you mean like the new libc++?
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NewC%2B%2BStack
For
If it would be truly about removing GPLv3 code that hurts, replacing
libstdc++ would be first thing to do.
I assume you mean like the new libc++?
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NewC%2B%2BStack
yes. this is actually GREAT MOVE!
even if it's slower, object oriented languages are not about speed
Chad Perrin perrin at apotheon.com writes:
Anyway, switching from GCC to Clang has essentially nothing to do with
the kinds of problems we increasingly see in the Linux world. In fact,
one of the biggest problems in the Linux world is the fact that GNU
projects have a tendency to degrade
I am more concerned about an aspect of the language the clang tools are
written in, namely the use of object-oriented paradigm of c++ (it is a
phony
paradigm, one that does not exist in nature or reality, which explains
the failure rate of C++ OO projects historically and current usage
Chad Perrin wrote:
Someone in this extended discussion mentioned that there are efforts
underway to make sure the base system will compile cleanly with both
Clang and GCC 4.2+, so I think you're just making up complaints here.
Someone (other than Wojciech Puchar, who would just be talking out of
underway to make sure the base system will compile cleanly with both
Clang and GCC 4.2+, so I think you're just making up complaints here.
Someone (other than Wojciech Puchar, who would just be talking out of his
once again personal attacks from unhappy childs.
ass) correct me if I'm
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
i would recommend you to take more care about yourself, and not me.
You are not in the right position to give advice, young man.
--
chs,
___
Snippet from Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
I successfully predicted the fall of linux (in quality point of view)
years ago, then netbsd - after this and my prediction were good.
Now i predict FreeBSD will fall within 2015 time frame.
What i mean fall - that it would be
force gcc build that MAYBE will work. possibly not.
My experience with NetBSD suggests you may be right there, but Linux?
After commercial support got too much about directing decisions, NetBSD
got very quickly useless.
I'll have to build a new Linux installation and see for myself!
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 05:50:24AM -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote:
Snippet from Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
I successfully predicted the fall of linux (in quality point of view)
years ago, then netbsd - after this and my prediction were good.
Now i predict FreeBSD will
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc. Is that in
dispute or something? Or is this just repetition in case we
didn't hear you the first time?
just yesterday i've heard lots of otherwise
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc. Is that in
dispute or something? Or is this just repetition in case we
didn't hear you the first time?
just yesterday i've heard lots of
long term goals. Eliminating, or at least not being dependent on a GNU
toolchain. GPL v3 brings with it a whole host problems such as:
As you already know i don't like GPL very much. As i already said for me
GNU is computer communism.
But like or not like, i don't prefer my likeness above
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
OK? Can you just answer that simple question clearly?
Yes Wojciech, I can attempt an answer for you. Pay attention, this gets
very complex.
The decision to move to Clang was motivated by what is best for
Yes Wojciech, I can attempt an answer for you. Pay attention, this gets very
complex.
The decision to move to Clang was motivated by what is best for the project,
and not what is best for Wojciech.
still not stopped personal attacks (last part of last sentence) but lets
forget.
So please
The answer is:
1. gcc will still be available through the ports system.
2. The move to clang/llvm as a default compiler will reduce the amount
of GPL code in the base system, eventually reducing distribution
issues (especially for 3rd parties).
3. clang/llvm provides better error and warning
1. gcc will still be available through the ports system.
As well as clang is available in ports. not an argument.
2. The move to clang/llvm as a default compiler will reduce the amount
of GPL code in the base system, eventually reducing distribution
issues (especially for 3rd parties).
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
5. clang/llvm is more modular than gcc, although there are plans for
gcc to become as modular, it will take time.
Doesn't matter how it is written, but how it performs.
That's a hard one. I remember an error in gcc loop optimizer which makes
gcc produce SSE2 opcodes
And why you think it's not better then gcc?
because - as you already should know - test shows otherwise.
As well as FreeBSD running predictable with gcc anyway.
Still theory and ideology.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
[ Semi-apologies to all for being blunt, and possibly somewhat offensive. ]
[ More tactful approaches have been shown to be ineffective, and Wojceich ]
[ has a demonstrated propensity to blather on as though he knows more ]
[ about everything than anyone else.
still not stopped personal attacks (last part of last sentence) but lets
forget.
Fact; that was NOT a personal attack. Your entire line of reasoning so far
has been about -your- preferences, and things as you see them, for _your_
What is specifically my preference?
1) Your opinion about
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
And why you think it's not better then gcc?
because - as you already should know - test shows otherwise.
Test show only that clang-compiled binaries are still subject for
improvement. It doesn't show how strict and clear this binary is.
As well as FreeBSD running
speed estimates.
there are a difference between speed estimate and actual speed - and i
talk about the latter only.
Besides, NetBSD and OpenBSD has already selected and using pcc now. And they
are fine with that one.
their problem.
___
Wojciech,
Why not make FreeBSD better for everyone by cooperating with the CLANG
project?
1. Find simple programs with severe performance issues
2. Report to the CLANG developers
3. They fix, tweak, and tune the compiler
4. FreeBSD imports latest release
5. Everybody wins
Why not make FreeBSD better for everyone by cooperating with the CLANG
project?
because we already have great compiler - GCC. In spite of using GPL
licence.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:14:09PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
And why you think it's not better then gcc?
because - as you already should know - test shows otherwise.
You just ignored everything Volodymyr Kostyrko said about the other
factors that are also important for a compiler being
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 02:16:43PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
speed estimates.
there are a difference between speed estimate and actual speed - and
i talk about the latter only.
You're talking about poorly managed benchmarks that are imprecise and
prone to fluctuation, applying only to
Besides, NetBSD and OpenBSD has already selected and using pcc now. And
they are fine with that one.
I wish that or something like that were true, but pcc is dead even in
OpenBSD packages/ports. There was just some discussion on misc@
I am hoping for the day gcc is only used on Linux and
I wish that or something like that were true, but pcc is dead even in
OpenBSD packages/ports. There was just some discussion on misc@
I am hoping for the day gcc is only used on Linux and many free compilers
are used everywhere else.
me too. but first we need to have Free compiler that would be
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Will i be able to compile FreeBSD base system with gcc after some time?
not sure.
Why is that so important for you?
--
chs,
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Will i be able to compile FreeBSD base system with gcc after some time?
not sure.
Why is that so important for you?
if you would read even less than carefully the topic you will get the
answer.
___
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Will i be able to compile FreeBSD base system with gcc after some time?
not sure.
Why is that so important for you?
if you would read even less than carefully the
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:07:09PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
email elided for purposes of courtesy wrote:
Will i be able to compile FreeBSD base system with gcc after some time?
not sure.
Why is that so important for you?
if you would read even less than carefully the topic you will get
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:40:56PM +0400, Евгений Лактанов wrote:
20.06.2012 18:47, Mark Felder пишет:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:43:14 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
email address elided for purposes of courtesy wrote:
[attribution lost by Wojciech Puchar and I'm too lazy to check]
Why not make
21.06.2012 01:14, Chad Perrin пишет:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:40:56PM +0400, Евгений Лактанов wrote:
20.06.2012 18:47, Mark Felder пишет:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:43:14 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
email address elided for purposes of courtesy wrote:
[attribution lost by Wojciech Puchar and I'm too
the answer.
I'll try to help out, here.
Christer Solskogen: I think the reason that is so very important to
Wojciech Puchar is the fact that he is incapable of imagining:
1. other concerns that might apply
2. that things appear highly likely to change
3. that a negligible performance
21.06.2012 02:26, Wojciech Puchar пишет:
the answer.
I'll try to help out, here.
Christer Solskogen: I think the reason that is so very important to
Wojciech Puchar is the fact that he is incapable of imagining:
1. other concerns that might apply
2. that things appear highly likely to
i tested your test program, and in that case, contrary to testing common
unix programs, difference is far higher showing gcc superiority.
i did this test with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang and FreeBSD 9 supplied gcc.
clearly shows that clang actually cannot do more agressive optimization
(that
Hi,
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 11:26:13 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds?
what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree?
Erich
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds?
what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree?
what is a problem as clang is in the ports tree?
the problem is that these compilers are not 100% compatible and soon if
clang will be default it will be not just
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
i tested your test program, and in that case, contrary to testing common
unix programs, difference is far higher showing gcc superiority.
i did this test with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang and FreeBSD 9
Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc. Is that in dispute or
something? Or is this just repetition in case we
didn't hear you the first time?
just yesterday i've heard lots of otherwise claim.
Try thinking of the transition as a step back to take many steps forward.
Hi,
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 11:46:20 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds?
what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree?
what is a problem as clang is in the ports tree?
for the port? It does not make a difference.
the
45 matches
Mail list logo
