GCC BTFO

Linux would require a total rewrite to remove GCC dependency.

It's not going to happen.

>>61585387
someone said linux was switching to rust

>openbsd

Who gives a fuck?

Linux will very likely never switch because >>61585387

GCC might as well be called Linux Compiler

File: 1479702131469-pol.png (196KB, 680x649px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 680x649px

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.

>>61585371
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.

>>61585387
This /thread

>>61585399
No. Nobody said that.

>>61585387
>Linux would require a total rewrite to remove GCC dependency.
There are already patches for that.

http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page

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

>>61585446
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 ?

>>61585371

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.

>>61585464
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.

File: 1401085007302.jpg (30KB, 290x350px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 290x350px

>>61585371
>All three OpenBSD installations switch to Clang

>>61585387
>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.

>>61585464
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtwaK-s9QRI

>>61586505
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.

>>61586533
>richard turdman
kek'd

>>61586524
This. People are already compiling Linux with Clang, but Torvalds and his gang of rascals have no intention of moving.

http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page

>>61586533
>>61585464
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

>>61585590
>bbbut GPL is great!!!

>>61586546
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.

>>61586593
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

>>61586589
GCC switched to C++ as the development language 5 years ago, m8, both major C compilers are written in C++ now.

>>61586546
>clang is superior to gcc us every which way possible.
Proofs?

>>61586612
GCC simply use C++ compiler for two features. There's extremely little C++ code in the source code.

>>61585371
Yes goyim, promote clang, work for google and apple FOR FREE.

Kill yourselves, dumb shits.

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

>>61586628
Yes, but most rational use of C++ boils down to this anyway.

>>61585402
That would piss stallman off to an unimaginable extent

>>61586722
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.

>>61585371
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

>>61587569
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.

>>61586618
It's better at some things, worse at others.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc7-clang4-jan&num=1

>>61585387
There is a project for compiling linux with clang. They don't joking as its somewhat werks with some patch.

>>61585371
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.

>>61585371
>amd64 and i386
The switch...

File: 1484899189853.png (47KB, 470x345px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 470x345px

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

>>61588650
>The only reason
That would be nice, but clang support (tier one level) way less platforms than openbsd.

>>61586546
> LLVM is being supported by Apple and Google
A good reason to avoid that.

>>61588650
> they wanted their source base to be entirely written in C, Perl and Ksh
bsd-tards will defend this.

>>61588689
Nothing wrong with perl and korn shell is free software.

>>61588686
I was referring solely to the x86 based builds.

>>61585371
>gcc4 in the build for these as well
Yeah, BTFO. :^^^)

>>61585441
I said it.

>>61586546
>and it's becoming ridiculously better at everything.
Ridiculously better at (((spyware))) maybe.

>>61586546
>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?

>>61585371
i dont think you can compile the kernel with clang , not yet at least

>>61585590
>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.

>>61586546
>clang is superior to gcc
http://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.

>>61585446
the patches are dead

>>61589335
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.

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

>>61589404
Wasn't that Phoronix guy trying to shill clang? I remember some sketchy stuff...

>>61586767
Nope. GCC uses C++03.

>>61588678
I see nothing wrong with taking good code and improving it. You just hide your inferiority behind GPL.

>>61590000
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

>>61590000
BSD license lets you hide inferiority. GPL code is always Free Software so nothing is hidden.

>>61586546
Actually gcc has caught up a lot. Five years ago it was much better now it is marginally better.

>>61590076
> hide inferiority
If you want to hide it why give it a license at all?

File: apu_think.png (29KB, 741x568px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 741x568px

>>61590076
>corporations are stealing my """inferior""" code

File: 1359236051-gcc-llvm.jpg (106KB, 1070x400px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1070x400px

>>61585371
>gcc
>2017

File: 1501110088330.png (53KB, 406x406px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 406x406px

it just works

File: 1491079776919.jpg (14KB, 255x270px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 255x270px

>>61585371
>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...

>>61590977
>one cares about
nice meme retard.

>>61590977
Linux is just a few patches away from working with clang. Once clang works with linux the gcc extensions can be phased out.

>>61586612
Allows C++ PRs != C++ is main development language

File: 1419037194474-0.gif (236KB, 400x243px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 400x243px

>>61591099
Tell me when clang can generate faster code across the board than gcc.
Maybe in 5 year, but sure as fuck not now.

>>61591157
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?

>>61585464

Stallman can suck a dick.

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

>>61591313
>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?

>>61591342
>guy who is the reason open source is shit today and his compiler and userland tools are still holding back technological progress

>>61591412
They are used because they work.
You are free to make better ones, know that industry changes very slowly.

>>61591412
>holding back technological progress
How?

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

>>61591244
>Tell me when clang can generate faster code across the board than gcc.
Is this a bait or are you just retarded?

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

>>61591423
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.

>>61591489
>being this mad nobody cares about your shitty BSD-lisenced strlen implementation

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

>>61591655
>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.

>>61591690
>>clang
>Developed by apple
So it's likely shit. Is it still proper free software at least?

>>61591457
As opposed to...

>>61591711
>Is it still proper free software at least
It is.

>>61585441
No, Linux is switching to JUST

>>61585371
>useless os becomes even more useless in the name of security
whew

>>61585399
Yes this is what rust cultists actually believe

>>61591730
tcc

>>61591730
tcc
plan 9's compiler collection ( http://man.cat-v.org/plan_9/1/2c )
unix compiler

>>61591655
>gcc
http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/GCC
>clang
basically a c front end for llvm. t.b.h. nothing really wrong

>>61585371
anyone know if the choice is due to licensing ideology, or technical reasons?

>>61592271
The first, that's why they were still on GCC4, GCC switched to GPLv3 after that.

File: 1405010329388.gif (2MB, 352x264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 352x264px

>>61591479
>phoronix
Did you intend this to be taken seriously?

>>61592186
>>61592226
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?

>>61592352
not an argument. show me better tests. and phoronix is the premier open source and Linux news and advocacy website.

>>61585371
is it read "klang" or "sea-lang"?

>>61593824
It's pronounced "clang"

>>61593824
>klang
this.
I watched a bunch of videos from conferences and everyone calls it klang.

>>61593824
It's probably like the gif/jif debate, whatever you want it to be. Klang is the more intuitive pronunciation though, and what most people seem to use at the moment.

>>61592263
>2005
anon...

>>61585387
>rewrite
>for a standard C compiler
This isn't Microsoft, GCC follows the actual C standard so removing the few CC-specific quirks is completely feasible and has already been accomplished.

File: image.jpg (3KB, 300x57px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 300x57px

Awesome. Does this mean BSD is going to stop sucking every dick in the universe?

Meanwhile Clang still produces slower binaries than GCC.

>>61592184
nobody actually believes that anon, stop falling for bait

>>61592263
>go

encountered this, looks relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdKLK_h19NY

>>61592387
c barely changed from 1989
>>61595043
go is cool

File: 574bb6c13deb8e0e0b287b82b.jpg (114KB, 736x744px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 736x744px

>>61585371
WHO made that pic to begin with, and why is he spamming all day everyday.

>>61594953
>GCC follows the actual C standard
only if you compile with -std=cXX, if not, gcc will compile with -std=gnu11, which has non-standard extensions enabled.

>>61591066
Bad example, anon. Clang's source code is much more readable than gcc's. Not even a fan of C++, but still.

>>61592263
>Theo
every time

>>61596193
>encountered this, looks relevant
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdKLK_h19NY
Excellent video! Shows how clang is gonna improve everything by removing retarded code.

>>61588803
Like I said, nobody said it.

>>61597005
C++ is worse than even the most obfuscated C.
Hell if it was allowed to compete, the language itself would win the ioccc.

File: 1500232473200.png (40KB, 1620x774px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1620x774px

>>61599985
>>61597005

>>61585404
Epik :^)

>>61585371
As long as clang is 100% free software me and stallman will be fine with this.