Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD Removes GCC From Default Base System
An anonymous reader writes "With the LLVM/Clang migration, FreeBSD developers have now disabled building GCC and the GNU C++ standard library (libstdc++) as part of the FreeBSD base system. GCC and libstdc++ have been superseded by LLVM's Clang and libc++, respectively, on primary architectures for FreeBSD 10.0."
You can still flip a few switches to get GCC, but the system compiler will still be clang. Update: 09/11 14:50 GMT by U L : Reader Noryungi noted that the What's Cooking for FreeBSD 10 page is also worth a look, adding "I have to say, this is shaping up to be a very interesting release. Bhyve [the BSD hypervisor], in particular, sounds very promising."
"the system compiler will still be clang"
Or the Onionequse version: FreeBSD's move to revolutionary new swording system adds a whole new meaning to compiling
Try this one: https://wiki.freebsd.org/WhatsNew/FreeBSD10
I have to say, this is shaping up to be a very interesting release. Bhyve, in particular, sounds very promising...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
See this link for an explanation:
http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/49906/why-is-freebsd-deprecating-gcc-in-favor-of-clang-llvm/49970#49970
In short, mostly it's due to FreeBSD's issues with the GPL, not all of which are purely philosophical (it affects their funding, for one thing). On the other hand, if you don't have a beef with the GPL, it's probably best to stick with GCC, which produces more performant code.
The Linux kernel itself is not GNU. Removing all GNU software will not remove the kernel.
For many reasons.
Clang is faster
Clang produces faster code
Clang's license is BSD (and hence more in line with FreeBSD's philosophy)
Clang has built in static analysis tools
Clang's error messages are easier to understand than gcc's
Clang has better support for C++11 than gcc
Clang's code base is much less convoluted than gcc's, and easier to work on
Clang's code base is more modular, which allows you to easily use separate stages of the compiler in other tools
Probably a bunch of reasons I've forgotten too
The real question is actually, why are so many people stubbornly sticking to gcc when clang has surpassed it in pretty much every way.
Licensing.
GCC in the FreeBSD base is stuck at v4.2.1 as that was the last version licensed under the GPLv2. As this is about 7 years old by GCC standards a newer compiler is a welcomed change and since CLANG is BSD-licensed it is more in line with the project's goals anyway.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Can LLVM's Clang build the Linux kernel and QT/KDE?
They are getting close to building the Linux kernel according to these slides. Qt has been able to use Clang for a long time now, but I don't know about the entire KDE.
Sorry, but it's you that looks like a douche.
For many reasons.
Clang is faster...
No its slower. Phoronix benchmark GCC vs Clang all the time. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm_clang33_3way&num=1
I don't think I've seen Ken Thompson's Reflections on Trusting Trust come up more in the past decade than it has in the past week. Right now seems like a particularly inauspicious time to switch to a one-compiler-to-rule-them-all strategy.
I'm particularly interested in trying to build the gcc phase-1 bootstrap compiler with llvm to see how that works out (TODO list...).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I'd have to agree with the "anti-performant" sentiment. It isn't cromulent to say "performant" if don't want to sound like a douche. It makes it seem like you're trying to embiggen yourself.
They broke it of from the community. They made changes but they did not commit the diffs. This after huge pressure from KDE devs. I prefere to have my code eaten up by other GPL projects and remain free forever than get assimilated in Apple's pretty iShit.
Because GCC is a total mess internally and Clang/LLVM is neat, clean, maintainable, adjustable.
GCC is a dead end. LLVM is the future.
The real question is actually, why are so many people stubbornly sticking to gcc when clang has surpassed it in pretty much every way.
I'm all for replacing GCC.
Does clang handle all the GCC extensions to C yet? Or is the (better) approach of getting rid of them being taken instead? The last I heard it was still a bit of a mess.
It's exactly as vague and ambiguous as 'better', while sounding pseudo technical. Something a PHB would parrot.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
And a more performant one at that.
Which I and probably about every other BSD-style coder respects. However, this debate is really old. I think there is something to be said for both license-models and it is good they both exist. I however do feel that true free code, is well... really free. Also to be used without giving the source. It's a choice I made and I can perfectly understand why people don't want to have Big Ol' Apple stealing their stuff and making heaps of money from it. But, I can also understand why people want to really give the code away. It's all about perspective and there is no right or wrong here. It all depends on the personal views of the coder/owner of the code and what that person/org wants to let others do with their code. BSD has the advantage that it can become closed source. That makes it easier to generate profit, but also (especially in the commercial world) there are other good reasons why people want to protect their product. GPL has the advantage that every time someone uses your code, that code will become available also. Just don't ever think that because your code is GPL'd, no one will dare to use it in close source. As much as I would love such a world, that would be very naive.
BSD think of the freedom of the distributor, the GPL thinks of the freedom of the user. I see myself as a user, you see yourself as a proprietary distributor. BSD code helps build DRMed jails for Sony and Apple. I prefer a license that disallows this. I want to share my code with anyone in the world who does not to build proprietary stuff (for building new software). And share my software with anyone for usage, regardless of the purpose.
And that is one of the worst justifications ever. In fact, it's so bad, it lends credence to the "GPL is viral" belief - because the GPL can take and take and take, and not give back
it takes what IT IS ALLOWED to take, it gives back everything as long as you redistribute it keeping it free.
There are two civilizations, the Babbling Software Developers (BSD) and the Grooming Prevented by Law (GPL). The first has a law: "do what you want". The other has a law "Do what you want as long as it doesn't prevent others to do the same". Simple, no?
I don't see why a dev that allows everybody, commercial entities wielding software patents included, the freedom to use his code would be bothered by the GPL, but then, I am not one of them.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
I'm deeply disappointed that this issue was decided over philosophical instead of technical merits. If Clang was superior to GCC in the majority of benchmarks, then I would support this decision. But that’s not the case, GCC is still leading in most benchmarks and can be an order of magnitude faster when the popular OpenMP library is used.[1] Sadly, BSD users are the losers here.
[1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm_33svn_competes&num=5
Did you try a computer jargon dictionary? Formal dictionaries do not add jargon until it is no longer jargon.
'Performant' is not jargon because it is not used to communicate a specific technical meaning within a particular field of knowledge. It is slang: an unrecognised synonym for 'better', used by people who want to make a vaguely positive but non-specific claim. In this case, suggesting that GCC 'produces more performant code' could imply that it produces an output that executes faster, or is smaller, or is a more exact interpretation of the source with respect to the official language standards or a host of other possible claims. In other words, it's equivalent to saying 'produces better code'.
Trying so hard to use "big words" that you resort to using non-words that sound big = douche.
So what you mean to say is, "durr, people who are smarter than me are douches."
Using made-up words is not a sign of intelligence. Smart people know how, when and whether to use the more obscure parts of the English language.
I'm deeply disappointed that this issue was decided over philosophical instead of technical merits. If Clang was superior to GCC in the majority of benchmarks, then I would support this decision. But that’s not the case, GCC is still leading in most benchmarks and can be an order of magnitude faster when the popular OpenMP library is used.[1] Sadly, BSD users are the losers here.
[1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm_33svn_competes&num=5
So what would you prefer? That BSD threw out their entire licensing policy and adopted the GPL3? Or that they stuck with an old version of GCC that was licensed under the just about permissible to them GPL2 but that got no updates.
Maybe they could have forked GCC then tried to maintain a version that was licensed under GPL2 and backported GPL3 GCC fixes into their fork but that strikes me as being a legal nightmare to be honest.
It would have been more useful it phoronix compared LLVM/Clang 3.3 to GCC 4.2.1 and you posted that as that is the only thing the BSD community could use instead.
This decision was forced by the GCC adopting the GPL3 but was probably always going to happen sooner or later. The BSD community and the FSF have VERY different ideas of what constitutes "free" software with the FSF actually wanting their code to be less free in order to make sure that if you use it you have to let other people see how you use it and keep any derivatives free.
I dont read
The freedom to not offer freedom. No one is forced to use your software.
OK, really: do you seriously expect BSD not to stick with BSD Licensed code? It's pretty much the point of the exercise. YouBetterSayGNULinux is there if you want it - you can have all the GNUs you want. BSD is not and should not be a Linux distro - it's its own thing, older and with a different mindset.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
tl;dr Apple is allergic to the GPL v2, and really allergic to the GPL v3. They were never happy about gcc being their base compiler, so they've been funding the hell out of LLVM/Clang so they can use that as their base compiler instead. Apple is also the main backer of FreeBSD.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
This would only be an issue if the "consumer device" were shipped with GCC on it. The complied result ("binary") from GCC is not bound by GCC's license -- if that were true, the entire world is violating the GPL.
The simple truth is FreeBSD purists have always had their panties in a wad from anything and everything that wasn't "BSD licensed". The changes in GPLv3 have been enough of bad taste to get the rest of the gang to agree enough is enough.
BSD think of the freedom of the distributor, the GPL thinks of the freedom of the user. I see myself as a user, you see yourself as a proprietary distributor.
FFS, I have had it with the "USER" bullshit. Real end users "use" the system and care more about usability than access to the source code. Most of them would not know how to write any code let alone audit it. Stop confusing yourself, an interested third party, with end users. You might also be a user but not all users are interested third parties with coding skills.
The end user's "freedom" is actually limited when nerds argue over licensing terms and are unable to include some software because of it. I am a developer and a user and I find BSD for be free enough. It offers me the choice of proprietary implementation of a BSD project's code, open source BSD implementations and the ability to create my own proprietary implementation for me and my friends without having to hire a lawyer. I can also choose to contribute some or all of my modifications back to the community if I so choose. That is true freedom. The GPL is actually a form of slavery that you agree to enter into in order be able to modify the code. I would rather "pay" money and keep my freedom thank you very much. The price that the GPL imposes is too high a price.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Since the FreeBSD Kernel is BSD licensed, it only makes sense to have the entire base toolchain BSD licensed as well. This is a big step in that direction. There is also a broader project to create BSD licensed versions of all of the core Unix utilities as well. Hopefully we will see this happen soon.
I'm deeply disappointed that this issue was decided over philosophical instead of technical merits. If Clang was superior to GCC in the majority of benchmarks, then I would support this decision. But that’s not the case, GCC is still leading in most benchmarks and can be an order of magnitude faster when the popular OpenMP library is used.[1] Sadly, BSD users are the losers here.
[1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm_33svn_competes&num=5
So what would you prefer? That BSD threw out their entire licensing policy and adopted the GPL3? Or that they stuck with an old version of GCC that was licensed under the just about permissible to them GPL2 but that got no updates.
Maybe they could have forked GCC then tried to maintain a version that was licensed under GPL2 and backported GPL3 GCC fixes into their fork but that strikes me as being a legal nightmare to be honest.
It would have been more useful it phoronix compared LLVM/Clang 3.3 to GCC 4.2.1 and you posted that as that is the only thing the BSD community could use instead.
This decision was forced by the GCC adopting the GPL3 but was probably always going to happen sooner or later. The BSD community and the FSF have VERY different ideas of what constitutes "free" software with the FSF actually wanting their code to be less free in order to make sure that if you use it you have to let other people see how you use it and keep any derivatives free.
gcc being gpl v3 does not effect the output of the complier only code linked to or borrowed from it
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
This would only be an issue if the "consumer device" were shipped with GCC on it. The complied result ("binary") from GCC is not bound by GCC's license -- if that were true, the entire world is violating the GPL.
So what happens with OpenGL or OpenCL, where code is compiled at runtime? That's the real reason why Apple found gcc 4.3 and later unacceptable, and I have some suspicion that was actually a reason for the license change. There are plenty of other places where compilation happens at runtime, like JavaScript.
We aren't talking about OpenWhatver, or JavaShit. We're talking about GPLv3 versions of GCC. It's all but unheard of for gcc to be included on a shipping consumer product -- DVR, NAS, router, switch, access point, cellphone, voip phone, pocket watch, coffee maker, network card, and so forth.
FreeBSD has a passable compiler toolchain that isn't beholden to GPL, and they're running with it. Go for them. Someday it might produce code as small, fast, and efficient as gcc. (it you've ever worked with gcc source, you know what it's like to claw your eyeballs out. I don't practice that voodoo anymore.)
So you think we should scrap GCC all-together as well, and all switch over to Intel's C Compiler (ICC), since it's technically better?
After all, you think philosophy doesn't matter...
And GPLv3 incompatibilities with the project are more than just abstract "philosophical" differences, as it can impact use and distribution of FreeBSD.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant