Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Defending GCC considered futile

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 209 posts

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#51

Post by phkahler »

darkpore wrote: post #32
sanxiyn wrote: post #23

This is a bit over the top. As the rest of the thread points out, GCC in general still generates faster code than LLVM. "What does it take to get LLVM as performant as GCC" talk from 2014 LLVM Developers' Meeting discusses details. http://llvm.org/devmtg/2014-10/Slides/Molloy-LLVM-Performant... "GCC versus LLVM performance analysis reveals the LLVM inliner 1) does not inline certain hot functions unless a high thresh…

Does it? http://imagine-rt.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/c-compiler-benchmar...

Why yes, yes it does. There are exceptions of course, you seem to have found one. Here are some others: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc49_com...

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#52

Post by tjr »

Htsthbjig wrote: post #45
hywel wrote: post #6

> Already my own experiments suggest that LLVM is a superior compiler, by every metric I know of Except that it isn't copyleft, which is one of the most important metrics to Stallman, FSF et al, and is why they're unlikely to stop defending it.

It is copyleft. In fact they leave you more rights to copy the source than GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#53

Post by hywel »

Htsthbjig wrote: post #45
hywel wrote: post #6

> Already my own experiments suggest that LLVM is a superior compiler, by every metric I know of Except that it isn't copyleft, which is one of the most important metrics to Stallman, FSF et al, and is why they're unlikely to stop defending it.

It is copyleft. In fact they leave you more rights to copy the source than GPL.

From http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license:

"LLVM’s license is not a “copyleft” license like the GPL."

Rights to copy the source is not what copyleft means.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#54

Post by cynicalkane »

Aqueous wrote: post #33

Despite the inflexibility of RMS' arguments (they grate on me as much as anyone) I feel like his position on continuing to develop GCC without modern features like a fully exposed AST is necessary to keep the "moderate" position where it is. In other words, RMS' radical position is necessary for 'moderate' LLVM to exist. Otherwise we'd still be living in the Borland/Metrowerks/Microsoft world of the 90s - proprietary…

This is false--people are just as likely to respond to opposing arguments with rejection and ideological hardening. This is replicated in psychological studies.

In my personal experience, the less the opposing position acknowledges the values of its opponents, the more likely it is to be rejected. Most people reason by mood affiliation and use argumentation as a social tool, so this should not be a surprise.

I think the "Overton window" is confusing cause and effect; it's the nature of reasonable positions to generate unreasonable fanatics at the tail ends. But if you pay attention to the loud fanatics at a given point of time, you find most of them do not shift any window but instead fall into irrelevance. I think that as RMS's software becomes less important, people will care less about what he has to say.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#55

Post by longlivegnu »

pjmlp wrote: post #37
rayiner wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about a C compiler and debugger. Lots of very technically knowledgable people shun IDEs and automated refactoring in that space.

Only in the UNIX world. In the game development world, embedded systems and desktops we like our IDEs.

I am not sure many computer scientists care about the game development world apart from maybe VR+Other cutting edge prototypes that we could only benefit from if gaming funds it.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#56

Post by tree_of_item »

Htsthbjig wrote: post #45
hywel wrote: post #6

> Already my own experiments suggest that LLVM is a superior compiler, by every metric I know of Except that it isn't copyleft, which is one of the most important metrics to Stallman, FSF et al, and is why they're unlikely to stop defending it.

It is copyleft. In fact they leave you more rights to copy the source than GPL.

No it isn't copyleft, I'm not sure you know what "copyleft" means.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#57

Post by longlivegnu »

dekhn wrote: post #10
michaelhoffman wrote: post #4

Thankfully, Emacs maintainer Stefan Monnier is being sensible about this: > As mentioned earlier, in any case I will happily accept and install LLDB support into gud.el. So as long as I'm Emacs maintainer, your opinion on whether this might ruin the FSF's goals are not relevant. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00...

Yeah. What's especially painful is RMS is basically saying "Hey folks, I want to block this until I can research the issue." And then his research is "I don't know anuything about this, can anybody tell me what LLDB is?" My guess is (based on his past statements) that he doesn't browse the web, or browses it through emacs sending mail to him (really!) and doesn't use search so he can't really find out what LLDB is. D…

Yes, RMS does not "browse the web" he has a server that runs a script sort of like wget or cURL.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#58

Post by hga »

antientropic wrote: post #48
hywel wrote: post #6

> Already my own experiments suggest that LLVM is a superior compiler, by every metric I know of Except that it isn't copyleft, which is one of the most important metrics to Stallman, FSF et al, and is why they're unlikely to stop defending it.

This suggests that the FSF should create a GPL-licensed fork a Clang/LLVM. Such a fork could continue to receive all upstream improvements (since they're under a more liberal license), but not the other way around - the upstream project would not be able to use patches licensed under the GPL. Thus (in theory) it could end up being strictly superior to the original.

Didn't we go all over this when a hostile GPL re-licensing of a (painfully) reverse engineered OpenBSD driver was attempted?

I'm not sure what you could do, that would also be attractive for people to use and contribute to, that would add enough GPL content to make such a thing fly even in theory.

Maybe add a bunch of the GCC backends to LLVM? That's where it's most conspicuously behind GCC. There's also the precedent of GCC derived pre-Clang front ends, although I don't know how many of the non-C and C++ GCC front ends are seriously important (there's Ada, but that's got its own complexities).

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#59

Post by phkahler »

antientropic wrote: post #48
hywel wrote: post #6

> Already my own experiments suggest that LLVM is a superior compiler, by every metric I know of Except that it isn't copyleft, which is one of the most important metrics to Stallman, FSF et al, and is why they're unlikely to stop defending it.

This suggests that the FSF should create a GPL-licensed fork a Clang/LLVM. Such a fork could continue to receive all upstream improvements (since they're under a more liberal license), but not the other way around - the upstream project would not be able to use patches licensed under the GPL. Thus (in theory) it could end up being strictly superior to the original.

>> This suggests that the FSF should create a GPL-licensed fork a Clang/LLVM.

To do that you need developer support for the fork, so it won't happen now. It won't happen until enough people are sufficiently upset with the current development path, and if/when that happens it will probably not be due to the license.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#60

Post by fpgeek »

hywel wrote: post #6

> Already my own experiments suggest that LLVM is a superior compiler, by every metric I know of Except that it isn't copyleft, which is one of the most important metrics to Stallman, FSF et al, and is why they're unlikely to stop defending it.

I think the real point is there's defending GCC and there's "defending" GCC. Actually defending GCC means making it as useful and usable you can in the context of a robust, interoperable GNU ecosystem. "Defending" GCC includes creating pointless interoperability barriers and weakening other GNU tools in the guide of "protecting" copylefted crown jewels that no one wants to steal any more (those people have long since moved on to clang).
Post reply on HN