On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:14:25 -0500, Fred Morcos fred.mor...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?
Yes, 4.2.1 is the latest we can use.
Also, I have no idea what version of Clang
You should really configure your email client to attribute quoted
commentary properly (or, as a first step, at all).
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:51:00AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
be more exact.
I believe Robert Bonomi (you didn't include attribution for the previous
email, I notice)
On 19.06.2012 16:43, Michel Talon wrote:
David Brodbeck said:
Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
unable to beat a new compiler that's had almost none...
Unfortunately this affirmation is blatantly false, recent gcc produce code
much faster than clang. I
lilas% clang -v
Apple clang version 2.1 (tags/Apple/clang-163.7.1) (based on LLVM 3.0svn)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.0
lilas% clang -O4 test.c -lf2c
lilas% time ./a.out
...
real 0m2.359s
user 0m2.341s
sys 0m0.003s
lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc -v
?
gcc version 4.6.1 (GCC)
lilas%
I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?
true.
anyway - can someone point me an article about explaining in human
language (contrary to lawyer language) why GPLv3 is more limiting in
reality over v2 .
programs like mencoder which require
the highest efficiency.
Really - just to throw in another opinion:
As an average user I don't see any performance impact on my clang-built
desktop-every-day-workstation. The only thing that is getting on my nerves
are some ports I frequently have to
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:54:45 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
anyway - can someone point me an article about explaining in human
language (contrary to lawyer language) why GPLv3 is more limiting in
reality over v2 .
Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
As
Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
often called a viral license. Software linking against v3
libraries and so maybe programs compiled by a v3 compiler
will have - according to the license - to be released
i wouldn't be surprised that FreeBSD team would decide to go back to gcc
soon.
I would as one of the driving forces of the change was to replace GPL
licensed code in FreeBSD core with more permissive licensed code. This helps
to remove a massive legal encumberment for a lot of developers who
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
forcible, viral open source. I think we can all see the
On 19 June 2012 12:58, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
often called a viral license. Software linking against v3
libraries and so maybe programs
I don't see much fruit coming out of that conversation anymore.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria)
mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch.
By insulting
20.06.2012 00:06, Anonymous Remailer (austria) пишет:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
20.06.2012 00:50, Polytropon пишет:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:09:11 +0400, Евгений Лактанов wrote:
20.06.2012 00:50, Polytropon пишет:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria)
wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:06:49PM +0200, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
forcible, viral open source. I think we can all see the difference. Open
your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...
Give him a break. His heart is in the right place,
On 17 June 2012 21:37, Thomas Mueller mueller...@insightbb.com wrote:
What is the current status of Clang vs. GCC as default compiler for ports
and for
make buildworld and make buildkernel in HEAD and 9.0-STABLE?
http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang
Now one concern is wine not
On 18/06/2012 05:37, Thomas Mueller wrote:
What is the current status of Clang vs. GCC as default compiler for ports and
for
make buildworld and make buildkernel in HEAD and 9.0-STABLE?
Most ports work fine with clang -- at the last count 18252 out of 23661
ports compiled just fine. Of the
Thomas Mueller wrote:
Now one concern is wine not working when Clang is used to make buildworld.
For me I'm just waiting on toolchain stabilization as both this one and
(open|libre)office fail because of libgcc_s compiled with clang on amd64.
--
Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.
clang already compiles the system perfectly well. I'm using it by
default for that on my personal machines without problems. Any
remaining clang-bugs in the system would be few and far between and
generally in areas which are quite hard to trigger.
clang with ports is less well covered.
Clang is consistently faster at compiling than GCC and it is very clean and
modular -- not bloated.
-r-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 37025016 12 cze 21:46 /usr/bin/clang
well..
hope you just left the debugging symbols in and statically linked it?
standard FreeBSD built, assumed freebsd build
Hi,
On Monday, 18 June 2012 09:19:28 Thomas Mueller wrote:
On 17 June 2012 21:37, Thomas Mueller mueller...@insightbb.com wrote:
Now one concern is wine not working when Clang is used to make
buildworld.
This isn't good. Can you please follow up with more debugging
information?
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 15:13:05 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Clang is consistently faster at compiling than GCC and it is very clean
and modular -- not bloated.
-r-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 37025016 12 cze 21:46 /usr/bin/clang
well..
# ls -la
Are you sure CLANG is the bloated project?
already posted comparision.
your seems like too much propaganda.
I don't say clang is just bad, but i prefer real data over hype.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:50:37 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
I don't say clang is just bad, but i prefer real data over hype.
This is the most memorable and impacting set of graphs that I remember. I
haven't followed the data much since.
I don't say clang is just bad, but i prefer real data over hype.
This is the most memorable and impacting set of graphs that I remember. I
haven't followed the data much since.
http://clang.llvm.org/performance-2008-10-31.html
Now imagine having to rebuild projects constantly during your
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:37:55 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
This tens or hundreds of thousands of work-hours could be spent far
better by getting latest gcc available on GPLv2 licence and start from
there, just improving it.
We already have the latest
We already have the latest available with GPLv2, which is very far behind and
it requires GCC codebase experts to make any changes at all. This is
equivalent to letting any random coder make major changes to OpenSSL -- you
simply cannot afford to risk it.
so not doing anything and just spent
Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter
how loud you yell. The Clang decision is far-reaching and gives numerous
advantages to the FreeBSD platform. It's also not been a waste of time;
you're implying that the FreeBSD devs have spent thousands of hours
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Mark Felder f...@feld.me wrote:
Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter
how loud you yell. The Clang decision is far-reaching and gives numerous
advantages to the FreeBSD platform. It's also not been a waste of time;
you're
Apple had no problem using a GPL v2 licensed compiler. It looks like they
have a huge problem using a GPL v3 licensed compiler.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Joe Gain joe.g...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Mark Felder f...@feld.me wrote:
Please stop asking for instant
pear-shaped.
Clang is a great set of compiler tools. If you are only a user, as you suggest,
as i suggested - i am a user of compiler. i do compile my own programs,
as well as programs from ports.
and i hate just telling something is white while it is at most grey.
Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter how
loud you yell.
gratification Seems like you ask for it.
The Clang decision is far-reaching and gives numerous
advantages to the FreeBSD platform.
for example what?
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter
how loud you yell.
gratification Seems like you ask for it.
This might be to gratuitous for most on the list, but diversity
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
And the facts are: Lots of worktime were spent to make new C compiler from
scratch and this resulted with thing 5 times larger, working at similar
speed and producing similar code to GCC that is already
GPL runs contrary to the nature and intent of the BSD style license.
Free and open software benefits us all.
Getting rid of GPL is a good thing, and well worth any (debatable)
performance hits.
--
Dave Robison
Sales Solution Architect II
FIS Banking Solutions
510/621-2089 (w)
530/518-5194 (c)
gratification Seems like you ask for it.
This might be to gratuitous for most on the list, but diversity is almost
reason enough. And I don't mean this is some sort of fashion-way. I
think llvm and clang are interesting and serious projects.
never told otherwise.
i just try to do what
bloated gcc is just funny.
Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
unable to beat a new compiler that's had almost none...
none? so why it takes so much time to optimize?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
GPL runs contrary to the nature and intent of the BSD style license.
Free and open software benefits us all.
True. GPL is definitely not FREE software. Freedom doesn't have different
types. Something is free or it is not free.
GPL software is not free as i can not do whatever i want with it.
, with potential for further improvement and
nice license, errors etc. Fair enough.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Why-Clang-tp5715861p5719484.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Mon Jun 18 11:39:03 2012
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:37:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
To: Mark Felder f...@feld.me
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Why Clang
I don't say clang is just bad, but i
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:29:36 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
none? so why it takes so much time to optimize?
I don't think you understand how compilers work or the concept that new
programming methodologies have been developed over the last 25 years, so
this
That's interesting discussion.
I hit some cases where clang produced binaries were
clearly faster than those made with latest gcc. But it's far
from rule.
i did few more test on common unix tools, or my programs and results are
that by average there are just as fast within 1% range.
by
scratch and this resulted with thing 5 times larger,
*YOUR* measurement of sizes was faulty. grin
be more exact.
old bloated gcc is just funny.
You _do_ understand that they could not use -any- of the technology
implementations in GCC, that they had to redevelop everything from
scratch,
none? so why it takes so much time to optimize?
I don't think you understand how compilers work or the concept that new
programming methodologies have been developed over the last 25 years, so this
conversation is going to get stuck in a loop.
Right. You just behave as defender of CLANG
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:30:23PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
scratch and this resulted with thing 5 times larger,
*YOUR* measurement of sizes was faulty. grin
be more exact.
I believe Robert Bonomi (you didn't include attribution for the previous
email, I notice) *was* more exact, in
GNU communist licence for C compiler is not bad at all (contrary to other
..^
..^
software).
I many others _Know_ what BSD FSF licenses are.
Don't wwant repeated nonsense about 'communism'.
If you didn't subscribe
Sorry, my last header wrongly to Mark Felder, could give
the wrong impression. I would like Wojciech Puchar (not Mark F.)
to stop banging on about 'GNU communist licence' etc.
Cheers,
Julian
--
Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com
Reply below not
be more exact.
I believe Robert Bonomi (you didn't include attribution for the previous
email, I notice) *was* more exact, in that the rest of his email
explained what he thought of your glossing over the various factors that
might contribute to binary size.
I notice you ignored most of it in
Sorry, my last header wrongly to Mark Felder, could give
the wrong impression. I would like Wojciech Puchar (not Mark F.)
to stop banging on about 'GNU communist licence' etc.
because you don't like facts.
Sorry but i like only facts.
___
Clang is consistently faster at compiling than GCC and it is very clean and
modular -- not bloated.
-r-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 37025016 12 cze 21:46 /usr/bin/clang
well..
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On 17 Jun 2012, at 21:13, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Clang is consistently faster at compiling than GCC and it is very clean and
modular -- not bloated.
-r-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 37025016 12 cze 21:46 /usr/bin/clang
well..
hope you just left the debugging symbols in and statically
What is the current status of Clang vs. GCC as default compiler for ports and
for
make buildworld and make buildkernel in HEAD and 9.0-STABLE?
Now one concern is wine not working when Clang is used to make buildworld.
I see from reading the emailing lists that the intention is to make Clang the
On 17 June 2012 21:37, Thomas Mueller mueller...@insightbb.com wrote:
What is the current status of Clang vs. GCC as default compiler for ports and
for
make buildworld and make buildkernel in HEAD and 9.0-STABLE?
http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang
Now one concern is wine not working when
Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
I would like to know the reasoning.
CLANG isn't GNU licenced. Getting rid of communist licence is right, but
still it should not be the prime reason for doing things, as having GNU
licenced gcc doesn't really hurt.
personally
Clearly an update was necessary. Unfortunately, later versions of gcc
have switched to GPLv3, which is a viral license and unacceptable to the
FreeBSD project.
wasn't aware of that.
Therefore clang was chosen from amongst a number of alternatives as the
best replacement. That makes it
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:17:19 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
and - at least for now - clang itself is very slow. But produces not
worse (or better) code than gcc.
Clang is consistently faster at compiling than GCC and it is very clean
and modular -- not
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:05:59 +0100
Matthew Seaman matt...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 06/06/2012 18:28, Thomas D. Dean wrote:
Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
Yes, endlessly. Mostly on lists like freebsd-hackers@... and at
various conferences and developer summits.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:11 PM, 文鳥 bunc...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:05:59 +0100
Matthew Seaman matt...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 06/06/2012 18:28, Thomas D. Dean wrote:
Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
You might be interested in this video:
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Wed Jun 6 12:33:25 2012
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:28:19 -0700
From: Thomas D. Dean tomd...@speakeasy.org
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Why Clang
Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
I would like to know
101 - 162 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
