This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: clang vs free software


On 23 January 2014 17:49, Eric S. Raymond  wrote:
> (Redirected to the proper lists, excluding emacs-devel.)

Why do you think the gcc list is the proper place?

> The clang people aren't just a technical challenge to GCC, they're a
> philosophical/political one to the FSF as well.  They are explicitly
> reacting, and positioning themselves publicly against, what they
> consider FSF over-control.

The company that started Clang doesn't like the GPL, of course they
position themselves against its philosophy. I'm not sure why you think
that means GCC should follow.  Are we supposed to be surprised that a
proprietary code vendor finds the GPL prevents them doing certain
things? Isn't that the point?

> Carruth then says, exasperation very obvious in his voice, "This is *not*
> a *useful answer*!" (about 3:42 in the video). Thus, the clang project.

I'm not sure your version of history is accurate. Google didn't start
the project.

>  They
> want to build IDEs and other tools that share the compiler's code.  GCC
> policy won't let them do that.  Ergo, GCC must be kicked aside.

Good for them, why do you think the gcc list is the proper place to
tell this story?

> The clang developers are demonstrating that they have the capacity to make
> good on this threat.  clang is not a toy or a laboratory demonstration; it
> is a real, production-quality compiler with some significant advantages over
> GCC.  Much more useful error messages is one; a newer generation of
> optimization leading to smaller, tighter code is another; and much faster
> compilation is yet another.

Have you done a real comparison of error messages from the latest
releases? Have you measured how much faster Clang compiles once you
crank up the optimisation to the level that real programs use?

If you're just going to parrot the usual outdated claims please do it
somewhere else, we've heard them before.

> I'm not pointing out these facts to argue with the FSF's past decisions,
> but to ask "What are you going to do now?"

Why do you think the gcc list is the proper place to ask questions of the FSF?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]