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

91–100 of 209 posts

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#91

Post by sanxiyn »

darkpore wrote: post #71
sanxiyn wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it does. Did you read my links? Small benchmarks can go either way, but for large codebase (especially C++) inliner is more important than just about anything else. So GCC wins, because it has better inliner.

Yep - you evidently didn't read mine as 165 k lines of c++ isn't exactly a small benchmark :) Anecdotal, but I've seen similar improvements over g++ in my code.

There are many measures of benchmark sizes. One important measure is size of codes that account for 99% of execution time. If your codebase is a million lines but your hotspot is a thousand lines, benchmark result is sensitive to optimization quirks and in some sense benchmark is small.

More on this idea here: http://blog.pyston.org/2014/12/05/python-benchmark-sizes/

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#92

Post by NickPollard »

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.

You can only speak for yourself. Lots of game developers, including myself, do not commonly use heavyweight IDEs.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#93

Post by boomlinde »

arca_vorago wrote: post #42

Can someone explain to me what all the hubub is about. As far as I understand it and even as RMS himself states, isn't this mostly about them trying to block clang/LLVM tie ins to the debugger more than anything else? I don't understand whats with all the gcc sucks attitude these days. It's worked for quite some time, and yes it's showing some age due to the lack of development so it has lagged behind others, but we…

Why should that worry me? To me, that indicates that there are people interested in addressing the issues.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#94

Post by peatmoss »

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.

Open source: yes

Free/Libre software: yes (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatib...)

Copyleft: no

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#95

Post by nawitus »

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…

That might have been true in the past, but I don't see it being true these days. Lots of companies are only now figuring out the benefits of free software. Just look at Microsoft for one example.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#96

Post by hga »

dragonwriter wrote: post #85
weenie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of necessity and as a means to an end, because nobody else sharing his philosophy is willing to do it.

> Out of necessity and as a means to an end, because nobody else sharing his philosophy is willing to do it. I think that's a pretty striking description of failure in promoting an ideology.

Or at least his interpretation of that ideology.

I'd be really surprised if most of the people working on these marque GNU/FSF projects weren't happy with GPL/copyleft, at least for these "complete" programs (as opposed to libraries like the GPLed GNU Scientific Library).

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#97

Post by maxlybbert »

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #16
lultimouomo wrote: post #3

ESR seems a bit over the line with this mail, but what never ceases to amaze me is how RMS is disconnected with the present technology: >From its name, I guess that LLDB is a noncopylefted debugger and that some might intend it to replace GDB. But I don't know if that is so. This is just one of many, in the recent arguments he has stated several times that he doesn't understand how automated code refactoring works, h…

It's not just that his knowledge is outdated, it's also that his philosophical principles will always take precedence over everything else, which includes sound and/or pragmatic technological decisions. I'm not fond of esr in general but he's spot on with this post.

Yes, this is a perfect example of the difference between open source and free software.

I remember Stallman saying something along the lines of "even if it weren't as good as proprietary software, it would be important for people to use free software" over a decade ago.

The fact that releasing the source code, and allowing people to modify it, leads to high quality software is a nice perk as far as he's concerned; but it's not the reason for the FSF. The FSF exists so that programmers aren't helpless when their system breaks.

Raymond's arguments, on the other hand are all about which compiler or debugger is better, assuming the compilers and debuggers being compared are open source.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#98

Post by berkut »

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...

As the original author of that benchmark, I should point out that that was LLVM SVN (unreleased) against GCC 4.8 & 4.9 - I couldn't get GCC 5.0 SVN to build, so it's possible 5.0 will be faster again than LLVM in certain situations.

However, I would also say that generally I've found LLVM is now producing faster code than GCC in most code I've tested both compilers with.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#99

Post by [deleted] »

Aqueous wrote: post #66
cynicalkane wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure - "The loud fanatics" who have no following certainly drop into irrelevance. I think if what you say were completely true we would not have had any movement forward on positions that were considered radical just 10 - 20 years ago - like same-sex marriage. It is only because certain people with large followings - Andrew Sullivan and others - began making a vocal argument for gay marriage, which wasn't even consid…

[deleted]

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#100

Post by dragonwriter »

davidw wrote: post #64
josephg wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always confused by this stance. It presupposes that big companies like Apple and Google will at some point become bad actors in the opensource world. (They both contribute huge amounts of code). Even Microsoft is starting to open up their codebase with the release of huge parts of the .NET ecosystem. Frankly, I want the big boys on my side when it comes to opensource code. I want them to use the code I write. Usu…

> Am I missing something, or is this fear of corporations totally unjustified? Sun Microsystems basically grabbed BSD development by hiring up a lot of good people and running with it. It took a while for the various free BSD's to come into their own. Basically, with "bsd licensed" software, if a big company hired up all the developers, they could take it proprietary and out-compete fork efforts. I don't think it hap…

> Basically, with "bsd licensed" software, if a big company hired up all the developers, they could take it proprietary and out-compete fork efforts.

Well, look, sure, if you hire all the developers that are working on something and understand it, you can probably out-compete other implementations even if all you have the old developers do on your proprietary project is write up specs from which a different set of developers build a legally non-derivative interoperable implementation.

That may be a risk with permissively-licensed Free software, but its also a risk with copyleft Free software and proprietary software.

Post reply on HN