This is the mail archive of the 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 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 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
not have?

Or are you just propagating the clang marketing slogans?

(Hint: read 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"!
Oh, wait...

> 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
ask me...


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