201–210 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except they do, plenty of examples (many already provided)
Examples yes, I provided the examples of everyone taking advantage while not contributing. I am still waiting for the counter examples regarding clang contributions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that's a win for non-English users of the command line I am non english. I use ăâîșț. When writing a text document for humans. I also use :) but not . I'm still of the opinion that anything not 7-bit ascii doesn't belong in something that may be machine processed. Which includes compiler output. Edit: hey, HN erased my emoji. The dot was supposed to be the :) emoji style.
Didn't you ever grep a text document written in a language other than English? No processing of CSV files in different charsets? Not even encountered a file with a non-English character in the name? Not to mention the folks who deliberately set LANG so that their compiler and everything else will give them localized error messages. This stuff was all much worse 25 years ago, even 15 years ago. Like them or not, I do…
Yes but it was for humans originally? Not for machine processing.
> Not to mention the folks who deliberately set LANG so that their compiler and everything else will give them localized error messages.
The horror! Who even works on translations for compiler error messages ?!? It makes absolutely no sense!
Next they'll want to localize programming language keywords. I wonder how well that will work at this current project of mine that has people native to 3 countries, none english speaking ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The embedded compiler vendors, UNIX and consoles are quite happy with it. How much do you think they contribute back upstream regarding ISO compliance outside LLVM backend for their hardware and OS?
What exactly do you mean by "UNIX"? Commercial UNIX vendors other than Apple have basically a rounding error from 0% of market share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't you ever grep a text document written in a language other than English? No processing of CSV files in different charsets? Not even encountered a file with a non-English character in the name? Not to mention the folks who deliberately set LANG so that their compiler and everything else will give them localized error messages. This stuff was all much worse 25 years ago, even 15 years ago. Like them or not, I do…
> Didn't you ever grep a text document written in a language other than English? Yes but it was for humans originally? Not for machine processing. > Not to mention the folks who deliberately set LANG so that their compiler and everything else will give them localized error messages. The horror! Who even works on translations for compiler error messages ?!? It makes absolutely no sense! Next they'll want to localize p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Didn't you ever grep a text document written in a language other than English? Yes but it was for humans originally? Not for machine processing. > Not to mention the folks who deliberately set LANG so that their compiler and everything else will give them localized error messages. The horror! Who even works on translations for compiler error messages ?!? It makes absolutely no sense! Next they'll want to localize p…
It's not a next, but more a previously :) Localized development tooling is an old timer thing.
Older than that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is uBlock Origin "doomed" ?
https://ublockorigin.com/#:~:text=Understanding%20Manifest%2...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget that the LLVM folks actually went to GNU and offered it to them, and they failed to pay attention and respond . (It's not even that they responded negatively; they just dropped it on the floor completely.) There's an alternate history where LLVM was a GNU project. With the benefit of hindsight, I'm glad that that didn't happen, even though I have mixed feelings about LLVM being permissively licensed.
Gcc is the flagship of the GNU Project - allowing an endrun of the the spirit of the GPL in gcc was never going to happen. The project paid more attention than you give them credit for because allowing closed source plugins and improvements that use gcc as a frontend is anathema to Free software. There's an impedance mismatch between people who think gcc should have maximized user utility vs. the actual GNU philosoph…
You're right:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html
> If people are seriously in favor of LLVM being a long-term part of GCC, I personally believe that the LLVM community would agree to assign the copyright of LLVM itself to the FSF and we can work through these details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really wish templates didn't work on a dumb "replace at call site until something compiles" manner. All template requirements should be verified at the function definition, not at every call site. There is concepts. But they are so unwieldy.
Please no. Templates being lazy is so much better than Rust's eager trait evaluation, the latter causing incredible amounts of pain beyond a certain complexity threshold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I expect someday clang will become the default [compiler for the Linux kernel]. Why? I don't personally use GCC except to compile other people's projects in a way that's mostly invisible to me, but it seems like it's still widely used and constantly improving, thanks in part to competition with LLVM/Clang. Is the situation really so dire?
> Is the situation really so dire? I for one don't think so. From my perspective, there's at least as much momentum in GCC as clang/LLVM, especially on the static analysis and diagnostics front over the past 5 or so years. That was originally one of the selling points for clang, and GCC really took it to heart. It's been 10 years since GCC adopted ASAN, and after playing catchup GCC never stopped upping their game. P…
You're right to note that "competition" here is more like inspiration than a deathmatch. But I vaguely remember two things that seem similar to motivation via competitive pressure to me: (1) when GCC 5 came out, it had way nicer error messages, and I immediately thought "Oh, they wanted to make GCC nice like Clang" and (2) IIRC the availability of a more modular compiler stack like LLVM/Clang essentially neutralized Stallman's old strategic argument against more a more pluggable design, right?
Here's the pending GCC 15 release notes: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-15/changes.html (since the link in the article points to GCC 14) - I'd love to see godbolt examples of the sort of optimizations [[unsequenced]] and [[reproducible]] can do. - GCC has always been in my experience smart enough to know how to optimize normal C code into ROL and ROR instructions. I've never had any issues with it. So what's the point of __…
> How about some __int128 literals There are _BitInt literals (wb and uwb), look adequate https://godbolt.org/z/xjEEM5Pa4 despite clang's "is a C23 extension" noise.