FreeBSD Throws the Clang/LLVM Switch: Future Releases Use LLVM

An anonymous reader writes "Brooks Davis has announced that the FreeBSD Project has now officially switched to Clang/LLVM as C/C++ compiler. This follows several years of preparation, feeding back improvements to the Clang and LLVM source code bases, and nightly builds of FreeBSD using LLVM over two years. Future snapshots and all major FreeBSD releases will ship compiled with LLVM by default!"

Comments

Having a strong competitor to GCC

[stox]

will drive GCC to a far greater degree than without a competitor. This is good for all involved.

Re:Having a strong competitor to GCC

[serviscope_minor]

Well, better for some people. I suspect that the first fallout of any industry shift to LLVM will be that the public compiler will be significantly lacking in optimizations while the expensive, proprietary versions will have all the good optimizations.

Not just that.

I remember the bad old days where every venduh and his dog had their own "extra proprietary super awseome dongle controlled extra awesome super cool" compiler.

Vendors of hardware *LOVE* proprietary compilers. And by love, I mean love to break in mysterious and subtle ways.

Once gcc took off in the embedded world, life got a lot better since many of the cheaper vendors would just use as close to stock gcc as possible (though usually with a little bit of extra internal compiler errors added), rather than some extra super proprietary extra messed up version.

This isn't a business issue. There is no sane business case for taking a commercial compiler front end and a commercial compiler back end, filling it with extra bugs and shipping it. But hardware vendors love to believe that they have an awesome proprietary advantage in software for some reason. Even though they sell hardware. They don't, of course. I'd just say "whatever" except that turns rapidly into invective if one is forced to use their "tools".

Once GCC came along, they believed that they no longer had such an advantage (presumably) so they stopped introducing their extra proprietary bugs into compilers, and limited themselves to a few extra miscellaneous bugs. But it was still mostly gcc and still mostly worked.

If LLVM comes to dominate, the hardware vendors will jump right back on that attitude and make the life of the humble developer hell again.

This isn't a religious, or philosophical issue. It's a "hardware vendors are mental" issue.

Re:Having a strong competitor to GCC

[Microlith]

XCode using LLVM+CLang as the default compiler for all projects?

That's hardly an industry shift and you know it.

And secondly, what "expensive, proprietary version"? This does not exist - you have invented it, for the purpose of anti-BSD rhetoric.

So we're going to ignore all of the proprietary, seat-licensed compilers out there?

This is a paranoid possibility in your Stallman-dizzied head, not an actual fork.

Quick! Into the name-calling and ad-hominem!

Apple, for instance, roll all the LLVM+CLang fixes back into mainline.

Do they? Unless you're on their compiler team you can't possibly know this.

I believe the phrase "you mad" applies very, very well to your spittle-flecked rant here.

Re:Grin

[Anonymous Coward]

With BSD software, not only are you giving away the source code, but you are giving it away with even fewer restrictions than with GPL.

What's that you say? You want to take the software that other people have released and use it in your closed source product? Well then of course you like BSD software better. But you can obviously see why many people who write the open software prefer a GPL style.

Can modify GPL'd code, make money and *not* share

[perpenso]

GPL is for people and companies that think "I wrote this software [together with X, Y and Z] and if somebody else makes it better they must share it with all the world, as I did."

That is quite misinformed. Organizations can modify and use GPL'd code internally, make a lot of money off of it, and not share with anyone. I believe Google does so.

BSD is for people and companies that think "I wrote this software [together with X, Y and Z] and I accept the loss that somebody else makes it better and keep it for themselves because I want to have the option of getting somebody's else software, make it better and keep it for me without sharing it back."

Beyond misinformed, merely a spouting of FSF spin.

In truth the BSD folks want the widest possible distribution of their software because they believe that will ultimately provide the computing world the greatest benefit. BSD Unix arguably did provide quite a benefit to both hobbyists and corporations.

Perhaps more importantly is that BSD Unix was a product of the University of California, a taxpayer funded entity, and they felt that all taxpayers should have equal access to their work. That the politics of picking good users and bad, approved uses of the software and unapproved, etc was wrong.

Re:Your anti-GPL FUD is inaccurate and unconvincin

[Bengie]

It seems to me that the ability to "lock up" formerly free software has enabled the worst actors in the global market for computer software to accumulate wealth and power which they have then used to distort the market to the detriment of free software authors. The GPL is a response to this perception.

The software is always free. What they do is not make their changes free, but the original is still free as ever.

An idea cannot be "stolen" or "taken away". The original will always remain.

Personally, I think most people's ability to think breaks down once "infinite" is involved. I have no qualms with GPL, but your argument is full of holes. You are as bad as the RIAA claiming others steal their work and every stolen copy is a lost sale. Please revise your argument, it makes the GPL look like a bunch of zealots use it.