This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: clang vs free software
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: esr at thyrsus dot com
- Cc: Helmut Eller <eller dot helmut at gmail dot com>, rms at gnu dot org, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:14:24 +0100
- Subject: Re: clang vs free software
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAJnXXoi2MLpZWxOxknR=mNR91JdZcHrKRsqYZSWY373fvwxObg at mail dot gmail dot com> <87eh439w1n dot fsf at uwakimon dot sk dot tsukuba dot ac dot jp> <CAJnXXojjSAWL8cqZp0X16xa81R73huywtTS90p6O3CpRaPOiDQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <jwvwqhu8zcg dot fsf-monnier+emacs at gnu dot org> <87ha8yqvup dot fsf at engster dot org> <E1W5cXI-0000j4-8x at fencepost dot gnu dot org> <CAJnXXoiuzZhjDGpvXY7psee=+bXn1rB+GdELYP0FS0CuWPqYeQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <E1W6HwP-0001WU-Tg at fencepost dot gnu dot org> <87r47zezcc dot fsf at fencepost dot gnu dot org> <m2eh3ykc3y dot fsf at gmail dot com> <20140123174934 dot GA10933 at thyrsus dot com>
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> (Redirected to the proper lists, excluding emacs-devel.)
This is not the proper list. "gcc@ is a ... list for general
development discussions about GCC." (xf
http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html). Most of this pointless discussion has
nothing to do with GCC development.
But there's so much BS in this one e-mail that I can't resist reacting
in equal non-nonsensical fashion... ;-)
> policy won't let them do that. Ergo, GCC must be kicked aside.
Same "logic": I can't use my dish washer to fly to the moon, ergo it
must be kicked aside.
> The clang developers are demonstrating that they have the capacity to make
> good on this threat.
I don't feel threatened. Do you?
> 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.
You've of course all fact checked this? Have you checked *for
yourself* that clang produces smaller, tighter code? What newer
generation of optimizations does LLVM have that you confirmed GCC does
Or are you just propagating the clang marketing slogans?
(Hint: read http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/ as an example of a
better-supported point of view.)
> GCC is in near-term danger of losing
> its dominance in open-source C development;
There's an indisputable statement, if not to say "fact"!
> I would say the danger is
> imminent if not that people are innately conservative about major changes
> to their toolchains. The other shoe will drop when a major Linux distribution
> ships with clang as its default compiler; I could easily see this happening
> before the end of 2015, followed by a cascade of me-too defections.
Ah, the major Linux distro builders are going for clang! That explains
why Redhat and Suse still work so hard to improve GCC and other GNU
tool chain software!
Oh, wait again...
> To keep its #1 spot, GCC needs to out-improve and out-compete clang.
Yes! Let's aim for the #1 spot and rule the universe! That's a stated
goal for GCC, after all, isn't it?
Oh, hmm, it isn't.
Your entire rant seems to be based on nothing more than marketing
statements that you present as facts, and an unbalanced deduction of
irrational conclusions from there. It's a waste of bandwidth, if you