LLVM and Clang 3.4 Are Out

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Unknown on Tuesday January 7, 2014 @05:21AM from the features-are-nice dept.

An anonymous reader writes that the LLVM compiler framework and Clang C++ compiler hit 3.4 "With C++14 draft fully implemented in Clang and libc++. Read more in LLVM and Clang release notes." Also of note: "This is expected to be the last release of LLVM which compiles using a C++98 toolchain. We expect to start using some C++11 features in LLVM and other sub-projects starting after this release. That said, we are committed to supporting a reasonable set of modern C++ toolchains as the host compiler on all of the platforms. This will at least include Visual Studio 2012 on Windows, and Clang 3.1 or GCC 4.7.x on Mac and Linux. The final set of compilers (and the C++11 features they support) is not set in stone, but we wanted users of LLVM to have a heads up that the next release will involve a substantial change in the host toolchain requirements."

118 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

pretty quick on the C++14 support by Trepidity · 2014-01-07 05:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does that make it the first compiler with full draft C++14 support? GCC is making progress but not there yet.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
1. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Trepidity · 2014-01-07 05:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  From a technical perspective I like LLVM, but I don't get the appeal of your 2nd point. Why should I work for free on a project in order to enable companies to make proprietary extensions to it that they won't release back to the community? The GPL makes me more willing to contribute to projects, because it ensures that everyone plays fair, so to speak: I'm adding my contributions, and if you find the results valuable and extend my work, you should do likewise.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
2. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by serviscope_minor · 2014-01-07 05:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Yet another good readon for everyone to drop GCC and move on to the future. GCC is obsolete in pretty much every aspect,
  Pure FUD. Who the hell modded this up. It's just plain trolling. GCC and LLVM are neck and neck, with GCC winning in the quality of the optimizer. I've also had compiler crashes much more recently with LLVM than with GCC, so it seems that GCC is also somewhat more battle hardened.
  
  and the non-permissive license makes it hard to use for other purposes than simple command-line compilation compared to LLVM which can be integrated in many different products.
  Only if you want to make your other tool non-free. Otherwise GCC works just fine.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
3. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 05:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The BSD folks tend to argue that things work out in the end anyway. Useful contributions find their way back, and when they don't then at least someone got some good code out of it. There are few exceptions, in general you can't force anyone to contribute back. Very few projects are that good. The only thing you achieve is that your code is used in less places.
4. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Kremmy · 2014-01-07 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  I do hope you have sufficient understanding that the ideas you're espousing are directly at fault for how screwed up the technological climate is right now. Apple, Microsoft, Canonical, all changing up and breaking their products. GCC has issues, number one being this push to drop it off the wayside like the rest of the foundations of modern computing.
5. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by jandrese · 2014-01-07 05:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  He's referring to integrating the compiler into your IDE. GCC makes this intentionally difficult, which is a big reason why there is no Visual Studio equivalent system that uses GCC. CLANG/LLVM is designed much more openly and should allow developers to really reach (and exceed) feature parity with Visual Studio.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
6. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 05:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Only if you want to make your other tool non-free. Otherwise GCC works just fine.
  You don't have to go as far as non-free. Projects that are non-GPLv3+ can't easily integrate with it. Even free software projects would benefit if GCC was at least LGPL since that allows code linking.
7. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why should I work for free on a project in order to enable companies to make proprietary extensions to it that they won't release back to the community?
  You shouldn't, but you should also not see it as a deterrent. Those companies will never release anything back to the community regardless of license.
  Yes, while unlikely they might be able to make some more profit thanks to whatever you contribute but that is irrelevant since it doesn't actually harm you or the project.
  On the other hand the way they think is that their source code is the most important thing they have and they will never make it public. Those companies will rather try to roll their own compiler than contribute to an open source project. By using a more permissive license you do not get more contributors in the form of programmers but I highly doubt that you get less either. What you do get is more contributors in the form of debugging and bug reporting.
8. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by gbjbaanb · 2014-01-07 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  actually, I'd say you would get more contributors - if the company you work for uses a permissive open-source project, some people will learn all about it at work, and will then scratch whatever itches they have with it at home, and release that code back to the community.
9. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  GCC makes this intentionally difficult, which is a big reason why there is no Visual Studio equivalent system that uses GCC.
  Where's the Visual Studio equivalent system that uses a BSD-licensed compiler?
10. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 06:15 · Score: 2
  
  XCode?
11. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by serviscope_minor · 2014-01-07 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  That works for GPL as well. Linux, GCC etc receive many (most?) contributions from companies.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
12. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  You would do this because then those companies will contribute back to you. You wouldn't have clang at all if Apple hadn't written pretty much all of it. Apple wrote pretty much all of it exactly because the GPL stopped them wanting to contribute to gcc.
13. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by angel'o'sphere · 2014-01-07 06:25 · Score: 2
  
  Most people who program the whole day rather have a beer at home ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
14. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by postmortem · 2014-01-07 06:29 · Score: 2
  
  Huh? QCreator, Netbeans and Eclipse C/C++ IDEs are fully integrated with GCC, including both debugging and compilation.
15. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by fnj · 2014-01-07 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  Absolutely correct that gcc and clang are nech and neck. One leapfrogs the other, or at the very least matches it with respect to tracking the evolving c++ standard, with each release.
  Re the license, GPL is not as free as BSD, end of story.
16. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by jandrese · 2014-01-07 06:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  What they can't do is micro-compile snippets of code to find errors, do auto-completion, etc...
  
  I'll let the clang guys explain it better.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
17. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by kthreadd · 2014-01-07 06:39 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sure it was Apple that stopped Apple from contributing to GCC. I'm thankful that they contributed to LLVM by developing Clang, but it was entirely their own choice to not contribute to GCC after 4.2.1.
18. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  You know, you can just invoke GCC as a separate process and use pipes for interprocess communication (eg. errors reported by GCC). This in itself is not linking and is not affected by GPL. There is not much reason to linking with GCC except if you want to rebrand GCC for your own purposes.
19. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by gbjbaanb · 2014-01-07 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  the point was that BSD licences aren't some sort of black hole into which companies will take and give nothing. Even if a company does do that, it doesn't mean that the project won't gain from it regardless.
20. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  GCC is obsolete in pretty much every aspect, and the non-permissive license makes it hard to use for other purposes than simple command-line compilation compared to LLVM which can be integrated in many different products.
  That's a bold statement with absolutely no proof. If GCC was obsolte "in pretty much every aspect", it wouldn't be in use. Open source community is not as conservative as proprietory enterprise so no one's stoping people from switching to Clang any time. I couldn't care less about gcc's license not permitting it to integrate with some hypothetical different products - all I need it to do is compile my code which it does well enough. Also, GCC is not just C and C++.
21. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by gnasher719 · 2014-01-07 06:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'm sure it was Apple that stopped Apple from contributing to GCC. I'm thankful that they contributed to LLVM by developing Clang, but it was entirely their own choice to not contribute to GCC after 4.2.1.
  It was an intentional change in the license that made it impossible for Apple to do some of the things they wanted to do.
22. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  I am confused - isn't this exactly the sort of thing the GCC Runtime Library Exception exists for?
23. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Above · 2014-01-07 07:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There actually is a good reason.
  Let's say a company invents a proprietary bit of silicon, and wants a compiler for it. They may likely chose one that requires them not to spill the beans on their proprietary hardware in the process. So yes, it's true, you don't get the benefit of their "special sauce", but you were never going to get it anyway, so there is no loss.
  However, that same company now has a lot of people using the code. It takes time and money to track separate changes, so if they find a bug in code not specific to their proprietary stuff they are likely to fix it, and submit it upstream so they don't have to maintain it going forward. That code will benefit you.
  So basically, the people who find the GPL odious will never use gcc, and will find some alternative. Given those people have fully closed options (license Intel's compiler, or Microsoft's), or use something like LLVM. With the LLVM model they can submit fixes to their non-secret sauce upstream, as well as get others to help fix problems they find in the non-secret sauce part.
  TL;DL, if you choose gcc or LLVM you're never getting their secret sauce, but if you choose LLVM you get more help on the non-secret sauce parts.
  That is the real essence of the "BSD License" philosophy. You may or may not agree.
24. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by am+2k · 2014-01-07 07:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Huh? QCreator, Netbeans and Eclipse C/C++ IDEs are fully integrated with GCC, including both debugging and compilation.
  What Xcode can do is integrate llvm with autocompletion. For example, if you do a switch statement on an enum-value, it autocompletes the possible enum constants after you type "case". After the first entry, it automatically removes the constants you already used from the list of possibilities.
  Xcode also does perfect autocompletion (method names, parameter types, etc.) of types derived from C++ templates, which simply isn't possible without compiling the file. This even works as you change the same file those templates are declared in.
  Other things include the analyzer, which tells you about issues that arise on certain input conditions. When you click on an issue, Xcode visually displays the flow through the program to arrive at the undesired end result using arrows.
25. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  And to elaborate on that point, companies with real resources to devote to improving the compiler are motivated to do so, because they are using it as the core in a larger toolchain.
  Just because those companies may not open-source 100% of their work, doesn't mean there is zero benefit to the community.
26. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Trepidity · 2014-01-07 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'd personally like something freer than both GPL and BSD: a license that lets you do anything you want, except sue a downstream user of the software for copyright infringement. GPL lets you sue someone if they don't comply with precise release semantics, and BSD lets you sue someone if they use your "proprietary extensions" without a license from you. A free license would ensure that downstream users cannot be sued. The only freedom that license would take away is the freedom to sue other people, which is not a freedom worth retaining.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
27. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by WilyCoder · 2014-01-07 07:39 · Score: 2
  
  please, PLEASE say secret sauce one more time
28. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by c++0xFF · 2014-01-07 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  They're not "fully integrated." IDEs can only call the gcc command, and have no access to internal data structures. The GPL prevents these IDEs from using the libraries directly.
  Compare this to clang which provides a library API and has the license (BSD-like) to back this up.
29. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by kthreadd · 2014-01-07 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  A free software license does not limit what you can do with the code. For all intents and purposes Apple could have released their code under GPLv3+ and they would have been fine. I totally understand why they choose not to do that, but it was Apples choice to do it; they could have done different if they really, really, really wanted to.
30. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by kthreadd · 2014-01-07 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  No, that is not the same thing. The runtime library exception is for the parts of gcc that gcc includes in your program when it builds it. The actual binary that the compiler produces. This is limited to certain headers and library routines. It does not give you access to the inner workings of the compiler.
31. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by HeckRuler · 2014-01-07 07:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Ah yes, all those people running BSD... All those people.
  Which, hey, if you include Apples OSX, is a hell of a lot of people. So yes, let us bask in all that effort that Apple has done for the open source community.
  
  Very few [open/free] projects are that good.
  
  Well with that sort of QUANTITY, you can't expect them all to be stellar.
  
  The only thing you achieve is that your code is used in less places.
  But those are places that you can actually use rather than the proprietary walled garden constrictive license which make for the sort of thing where you don't actually own the things you own. It also makes for a platform which is dead in the water and has no legs. And it's usually expensive.
  I don't care if a few businessmen shy away from the code I throw out there under an free license. They most certainly wouldn't have helped me.
32. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  That's what the "public domain" is.
33. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  How many people will know that the commercial project X contains code from the BSD-licensed project Y? Especially if they have never heard about Y before.
34. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by jo_ham · 2014-01-07 08:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  A free software license does not limit what you can do with the code. For all intents and purposes Apple could have released their code under GPLv3+ and they would have been fine. I totally understand why they choose not to do that, but it was Apples choice to do it; they could have done different if they really, really, really wanted to.
  And then shipped it together as a bundle with Xcode? The GPLv3 specifically prevents them doing that, and it was deliberately written that way. The GPLv3 absolutely limits what you can do with that code. It is a very restrictively and carefully written licence in certain very key areas (not that this is necessarily a bad thing if you want such a thing - and there are valid reasons for it existing).
  So, no Apple couldn't have done that "if they really wanted to", without making the whole of Xcode open source.
  That's not really "choice" and "freedom" is it? That's what this comes down to - the GPL protects the freedom of the *code* whereas the BSD licence protects the freedom of the *users and/or developers* of that code.
35. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Trepidity · 2014-01-07 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  No, if I release content into the public domain, a downstream user can still add proprietary extensions to it, and then sue reusers who use that fork without a icense. I'd like to license my software under a license that allows downstream users to do anything they want, except sue another downstream user.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
36. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by kthreadd · 2014-01-07 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  I think you misunderstood me. My point was that Apple could choose to adhere to the license. They could join the GNU project if they wanted, or hire Richard Stallman as their CEO for all I know. I don't know if he would accept that position though. But the point is that nothing stops Apple from becoming the next Red Hat apart from artificial constraints about what Apple can or cannot do.
37. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  Everyone who reads the required notice in project X, at least.
38. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by Bill_the_Engineer · 2014-01-07 08:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem with your argument being that Apple sponsors the clang and llvm project. I'm sure they put in more money than you, and we still enjoy the use of the BSD code.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
39. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  So, basically you're putting restrictions on your code. Sounds like you have your own walled garden, sort of. =)
40. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by peppepz · 2014-01-07 08:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Please update your FUD. GCC has supported a plugin architecture since 2010. You can use any GPL-compatible license for your plugin. This includes BSD, and in fact, there's a LLVM plugin for gcc.
41. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  (Same AC here.)
  Interesting idea, but not really all that useful in practice. Most people that want to take source code and incorporate proprietary extensions are going to be unwilling to give up their rights to protect that code. (Even if they don't release the source themselves, they're going to want to protect it from theft or otherwise (by hackers/insiders, etc.)) Thus, such a license is as onerous to such a party as the GPL is.
  On the flip side, someone who doesn't care about enforcement rights is probably also willing to release the underlying source code.
  I suppose there is a small set of people who care to keep their own code private, but don't care to enforce their rights if their source gets used. But I would imagine that set is very small. I could be wrong.
  I suppose you could also write a license that protects the right to sue in certain situations, but it's still hard to such a license getting traction, especially as it would get seriously complicated.
42. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by peppepz · 2014-01-07 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  As a user of the proprietary bit of silicon, because of the BSD license, I don't get a compiler for my machine at all, unless I pay for the company's proprietary one (if that is an option).
  This is something that bites me continuously with Android phones: manufacturers will only release the GPL licensed bits, so if I want to run my own software on the phone, I can only get crippled functionality because of all the bits I'm missing (Android has a no-GPL-in-userspace policy).
43. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by kthreadd · 2014-01-07 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  And these proprietary bits would somehow be released under GPL if the BSD license did not exist?
44. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  > and the non-permissive license makes it hard to use for other purposes
  LLVM / Clang's acceptance of patent encumbered code from Apple, Qualcomm, and others makes LLVM technically unlawful to use for anyone who doesn't have a cross license agreement with these corporations. If LLVM was intended to be usable by others it would at least be under the Apache license so that contributors had to at least offer you a license to use the code they contributed in LLVM itself.
  Sure, for now they're not enforcing but GCC isn't dead yet and it still produces faster, tighter code, so it isn't a big deal to drop LLVM for GCC. That won't remain true if people follow your advice.
45. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by phantomfive · 2014-01-07 09:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  And then shipped it together as a bundle with Xcode? The GPLv3 specifically prevents them doing that, and it was deliberately written that way.
  Wait, how does GPLv3 prevent them from shipping it in a bundle with Xcode? I'm pretty sure that's allowed under GPL3, but Apple didn't like the patent clauses.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
46. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Above · 2014-01-07 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Your recourse is to not buy that thing that lacks source, regardless of license.
  If LLVM (or some viable BSD licensed thing) did not exist these companies wouldn't flock to GNU, they would rather flock to Intel, Microsoft, or a host of others that will allow them to keep the technology from you.
  The only way the GNU folks get what they want (all code under GNU licenses) is if all other licenses cease to exist or are outlawed . Provided there is an alternative, from a private licensing deal, or BSD code, or whatever, folks will be able to avoid the GNU license and thus avoid sharing.
  GNU: All or nothing. BSD: We'll take as much as we can get.
47. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by gnasher719 · 2014-01-07 10:03 · Score: 2
  
  No, if I release content into the public domain, a downstream user can still add proprietary extensions to it, and then sue reusers who use that fork without a icense. I'd like to license my software under a license that allows downstream users to do anything they want, except sue another downstream user.
  So what if the next downstream user doesn't conform to the license by suing someone, what are you going to do? Sue them?
  
  This is seriously a difficult problem. When you give your software to soeone else, you can either give them a license, or enter a contract. If there is a contract then you can actually force them to do something (like force them not to sue somebody else), but you may have to go to court to force them. If there is a license, then you can't force them to do anything. You can take them to court for copyright infringement if they don't conform to the license; that's how GPL works.
48. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes, all those people running BSD... All those people.
  And NetApp, and Juniper, and EMC/Isilon, and Spectra Logic, and Sandvine, and Netflix.
  You should check out the commit logs sometime where they have "Sponsored by".
  
  Which, hey, if you include Apples OSX, is a hell of a lot of people. So yes, let us bask in all that effort that Apple has done for the open source community.
  You mean like LLVM/Clang itself? The creator and lead developer of LLVM works for Apple. They also hired the CUPS guy, and sponsored FreeBSD security work.
49. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by turgid · 2014-01-07 10:07 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  The problem with your argument being that Apple sponsors the clang and llvm project. I'm sure they put in more money than you, and we still enjoy the use of the BSD code.
  And one day they will put in proprietary extensions that only they can use, or maybe important customers, for a "reasonable" fee.
  It wouldn't take much, but they could make a special Apple dialect of some important language. OK, someone may be free to implement their own compiler for that language, but that's not trivial.
  Nope, I won't drink the BSD kool aid at the expense of the Free stuff. I remember the pre-GNU days.
  
  --
  Stick Men
50. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by Bill_the_Engineer · 2014-01-07 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  So you're not upset that the current codebase will remain available as BSD. You just want everyone to be forced to make available all of their extensions or software that may use some portion of the code.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
51. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Jartan · 2014-01-07 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  The GPL doesn't have anything to do with it. RMS won't even allow simple command line features that could be "used" by a proprietary IDE for instance.
  It's an understandable stance but the result is inferior software.
52. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by vakuona · 2014-01-07 10:35 · Score: 2
  
  As I understand it, it is not possible to integrate GCC into Xcode in the same way as LLVM is without having to license Xcode as GPLv3 or some other compatible license. For example, Xcode uses (if I am not mistaken) the LLVM/CLang API. I don't think GCC has one, and if it had one, I don't think Apple could use it without having to change their Xcode license.
53. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 10:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  As an Xcode user I would definitely appreciate it if they released Xcode under GPL. Can't tell you the number of times I sworn about bugs in Xcode, taken the time to file the bug report just to get it closed immediately because it was a duplicate of some existing bug that I'm not allowed to see and then wait months or even years for a fix. Yes this is so important for me that I would happily jump in and fix the bugs myself. I have absolutely no interest in Xcode remaining closed source. None.
54. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by postmortem · 2014-01-07 10:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Both Eclipse and Netbeans do parse the code using gcc parser
  https://netbeans.org/kb/docs/cnd/HowTos.html
  http://wiki.eclipse.org/CDT/designs/Overview_of_Parsing#Scanning_and_Preprocessing
55. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  It's a pretty bloody facile point you're making, then.
56. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  LLVM still makes sub par compiled code. Who cares that it takes less time to compile, its execution & size performance is awful, worse than GCC which is awful compared to most commercial compilers. This is especially true for ARM based instruction sets (VC & ICC do better for x86 as well). And the fact 'Apple' does it, is not a valid reason to do anything.
  Don't get me wrong, LLVM is a cool tool and great for debug code generation especially because all sorts of metric/instrumentation can be done with it, but as a compile to replace GCC would be a down grade and a compilers NUMBER ONE goal is to compile better machine code!
57. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Guy+Harris · 2014-01-07 11:20 · Score: 2
  
  LLVM / Clang's acceptance of patent encumbered code from Apple, Qualcomm, and others makes LLVM technically unlawful to use for anyone who doesn't have a cross license agreement with these corporations.
  The LLVM Developer Policy page section on patents says:
  
  If you or your employer own the rights to a patent and would like to contribute code to LLVM that relies on it, we require that the copyright owner sign an agreement that allows any other user of LLVM to freely use your patent. Please contact the oversight group for more details.
  Are you saying that Apple, Qualcomm, and others have not signed such an agreement? Or are you saying that such an agreement isn't sufficient to allow anyone who doesn't have a cross-license agreement with the patent holders to use LLVM?
58. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by AvitarX · 2014-01-07 11:28 · Score: 2
  
  Can users of gpl software be sued? I thought only distributers ( I guess with web apps thats murkey though)
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
59. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Goaway · 2014-01-07 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  So yes, let us bask in all that effort that Apple has done for the open source community.
  Like... clang?
60. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Goaway · 2014-01-07 12:23 · Score: 2
  
  For all intents and purposes Apple could have released their code under GPLv3+ and they would have been fine.
  Not really. They, like many other companies, were not comfortable with the language about patents in GPL3, and did not want to take on the extra legal risk it involves.
61. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  They're not "fully integrated." IDEs can only call the gcc command, and have no access to internal data structures. The GPL prevents these IDEs from using the libraries directly.
  Compare this to clang which provides a library API and has the license (BSD-like) to back this up.
  Wrong. An IDE can access all of gcc's internal structures - if the IDE itself is GPL licenced. So, no problem at all . . .
62. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  But you don't contribute to gcc, do you? No one wants to make a hippo dance.
63. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Above · 2014-01-07 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  secret sauce
64. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by jo_ham · 2014-01-07 14:36 · Score: 2
  
  And then shipped it together as a bundle with Xcode? The GPLv3 specifically prevents them doing that, and it was deliberately written that way.
  Wait, how does GPLv3 prevent them from shipping it in a bundle with Xcode? I'm pretty sure that's allowed under GPL3, but Apple didn't like the patent clauses.
  The anti-Tivo clause, written exactly because of the perceived "weakness" of GPLv2 (insofar as it allowed more freedom to the sorts of developers that the writers of the GPL dislike) that enabled closed-sourced pieces of code and hardware that are part of a product to be kept back, while the (now essentially less useful without the closed bit) code could be released following the letter of the licence.
  Xcode is not open source, but parts of it are. Given the way that the compiler is heavily integrated into it, using a GPLv3 licenced one would simply be infeasible, given that the whole of the source is not available.
65. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 15:55 · Score: 0
  
  Not always. It might make sense, for example, to use LLVM to do developer / debugging builds, and GCC + LTO for optimized release builds. If it shaves off five seconds per edit-compile-test cycle, it can be a productivity gain.
  (Of course, what I end up doing is to just switch between the two since they produce different error messages, and sometimes one will hint at the problem better than the other, especially when playing around with heavily templated code...)
66. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by zakkudo · 2014-01-07 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's what this comes down to - the GPL protects the freedom of the *code* whereas the BSD licence protects the freedom of the *users and/or developers* of that code.
  The GPL protects freedom in the same ways that the United States has laws and a constitution to protect freedom. BSD protects freedom in the same way that the public domain protects freedom.
  Given how things are getting snatched out of the public domain, that security doesn't mean much. When a BSD project becomes large enough to be sued for patent infringment, good luck with that.
67. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by fnj · 2014-01-07 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on definitions. If NetFucker Inc. uses GPL software in a router they sell, who is the "user" of the GPLed software - NetFucker, or the end user of the router? Or both?
  GPL is a license that says what you can and can't do with the software. Anyone who violates any of the terms of the license is at liability. Having said that, I don't think the "distributor" label is of significance except as an aid to visualization. it is hard to see a likelihood for the ultimate end user to ever to be in violation. I am not aware of any cases where legal proceedings were brought to bear on an ultimate end user. It's not like the decrepit SCO end game debacle.
68. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by peppepz · 2014-01-07 18:44 · Score: 2
  
  It's not a matter of the existence of the BSD license. The key is the license of the most competitive project. Keep looking at Android as an example: Google dislike the GPL, so if some BSD kernel was on par with Linux for embedded devices, they would certainly have chosen that kernel instead. And we wouldn't even get device vendors to release the kernels.
  Look at the Darwin kernel as another real-world example. Its source as released by Apple doesn't even boot nowadays, so the open source community around the Darwin kernel is very small if any.
69. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by peppepz · 2014-01-07 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  Flock to GNU, I don't know. They would certainly consider it, since the licenses of Intel, Microsoft et al cost them money, a fact that companies are very sensitive to. And after they pay that money, they get a proprietary license that is certainly far more restrictive than the GPL.
  The GNU folks "got what they wanted" when Tiemann added C++ to gcc because of the GPL license. Same thing happened with Jobs and Objective C. The GPL is proven to work, and it especially used to work back in the days when spreading FUD about the GPL wasn't fashionable.
  About not buying stuff that I don't get source code for: that can only be a philosophical proposition in today's world. The GPL is a bastion to keep our devices hackable, and as you say BSD-licensed code will make the situation worse.
70. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by jeremyp · 2014-01-08 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  And CUPS and Webkit.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
71. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  So when you have your $60k server and you have to choose between "free" GPL software and purchasing $1k for support licences from a 3rd party or Microsoft and paying $3k for your software, but getting support included, the "cost" difference isn't that much. What you're looking for are which one benefits you more.
  
  Some 3rd party compared some databases. Their conclusion is that up to around $140k, opensource is a lot cheaper or even free, but once you get past the point, you start needing support contracts and proprietary gets cheaper. Unless you can do everything in house, there is a huge middle-ground where proprietary is a better fit.
72. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by david_thornley · 2014-01-08 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure you understand the clauses involved. GPLv2 said you couldn't ship GPLed code linked to code with non-GPL-compatible licenses, and that is basically unchanged in GPLv3. The anti-Tivoization clause says you can't ship source and binary without the keys necessary to install the binaries. This means you can't put GPLv3 code in an iOS application, but it isn't clear to me that this makes any difference for a product that runs exclusively on Mac OSX. Remember that the output of GPLed code isn't GPLed (you can GPL it if you want, of course), so the licensing status of Xcode doesn't affect what's done with the compiled code.
  GPLv3 has more explicit patent language, but AFAICT (IANAL and TINLA) it says basically the same thing as GPLv2. This does seem to have driven some companies away, but I don't trust companies in general to be rational about F/LOS licenses.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
73. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  Once something is forked, it is no longer the original. Who cares what license the fork is under?
74. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by turgid · 2014-01-08 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  So you're not upset that the current codebase will remain available as BSD. You just want everyone to be forced to make available all of their extensions or software that may use some portion of the code.
  Suppose a very important piece of infrastructure, such as a compiler suite, were BSD licensed and achieved wide adoption so that thousands of companies and millions of people (developers, casual coders, end users etc.) came to depend upon it. Then suppose that people neglected competing FOSS projects...
  Now, suppose that this large important compiler suite's development were sponsored by a major corporation with a financial and ideological incentive to suppress competition.
  To begin with, everything is fine.
  Then the major (principle) sponsor of the project decides to add some proprietary language features to one or several of the languages supported by this compiler suite, rewrote large parts of their own code to use these features and encouraged, bribed or coerced their 3rd-party development community (many of which already pay for the dubious privilege of being allowed to compile and distribute their code for that platform) to use these new language features. Perhaps these features look cool and groovy to begin with and make development easier.
  Now this major company, what with the compiler suite and tools being BSD licensed have no legal obligation or incentive to release the source for their "enhancements" to the tools to the outside world. After all 99% of end-developers probably only care about getting a ready-to-use binary...
  Later, the company decides to charge a hefty license fee for their proprietary, enhanced version of the compiler. All these developers have written their code to use the proprietary features that once seemed so handy and convenient.
  Never mind, it's painful, but easier to pony up the cash for a license or get a cracked copy from bit torrent...
  Some bright spark decides to re-implement support for those language features in a competing compiler, say a FOSS one such as gcc.
  Then they get sued because the major company has "patented" the language extensions, "copyrighted" the language spec. and charges and exorbitant fee for it, or demands validation against a paid-for test suite to use the language name or some other aspect of the design or whatever, or demands membership of some industry committee or other such nefarious organisation invented for locking out the less well-heeled or those not wanting to play at Imaginary Property Hoarding.
  It's the old bait-and-switch trick. It's as old as capitalism (i.e. human greed) and the computer industry is not immune (IBM, Microsoft, Oracle....). It will always be a threat.
  That's why we need vigilance, competition, choice, freedom, education, and licenses like the GPL.
  But you were just trolling, weren't you?
  
  --
  Stick Men
75. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by HeckRuler · 2014-01-08 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, right. Damn, that's a pretty good comeback. Yeah, I dunno how I missed that one.
  It's a pretty sad state of affairs that I'm at +5 insightful for that comment when there's such a glaring logical hole there. I guess that there's a trend with Slashdot moderators that simply votes for anything that's pro-open source and anti-proprietary. This is the echo chamber my friends. And as big of a bitch as it is to admit it, yeah, BSD went closed source into OSX, and Apple then made contributions to Clang and LLVM. It's an example of code going into that black hole of the soulless corporation with perilous licenses and somehow coming out the other side to actually help us out.
76. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by Bill_the_Engineer · 2014-01-08 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  To begin with, everything is fine. Then the major (principle) sponsor of the project decides to add some proprietary language features to one or several of the languages supported by this compiler suite, rewrote large parts of their own code to use these features and encouraged, bribed or coerced their 3rd-party development community (many of which already pay for the dubious privilege of being allowed to compile and distribute their code for that platform) to use these new language features. Perhaps these features look cool and groovy to begin with and make development easier. Now this major company, what with the compiler suite and tools being BSD licensed have no legal obligation or incentive to release the source for their "enhancements" to the tools to the outside world. After all 99% of end-developers probably only care about getting a ready-to-use binary...
  A problem with your scary story is that the original BSD code remains available for use by anyone. The proprietary extensions would have to prove themselves worthwhile since we are talking about a standards based compiler, and the original BSD code is not affected by the extension. If the proprietary extension is worth the money then the people who find it valuable can pay for it without affecting the 99% of the people who would continue to use the freely available BSD code.
  Another being that in reality GPL is not immune to something similar. Take GNAT for example. You can use the free GPL version of GNAT that is one version behind OR you could pay for the latest commercial version (they call it access to pre-releases now) of the code which includes some optimizations not available in the GPL version.
  
  But you were just trolling, weren't you?
  It's not trolling when you are trying to educate someone about their misperceptions.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
77. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Goaway · 2014-01-08 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  In fact, Apple didn't just make contributions to clang, they started the whole project themselves, and released it openly once it was underway. LLVM they bought and funded after it had already been in existence for a while, but clang was their own thing entirely.
  And now there are plenty of commercial companies throwing in contributions to it, too.
78. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by aled · 2014-01-09 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Is was that in the past, but is that true today?
  According to the latest benchmarks in Phoronix http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm34_gcc49_compilers&num=5:
  
  Clang 3.4 offered faster performance of compiled C/C++ code in several areas but GCC 4.9 also brings some performance improvements of its own over the current stable release. Clang still certainly outperforms GCC when it comes to compile times, but aside from that the compiler performance competition is rather mixed depending upon the particular code-base, workload, and processor.
  For being a much younger project than GCC, LLVM/Clang is certainly running nicely and now building with almost all C/C++ code-bases tossed its way, and with the 3.4 release it's one step closer to having performance parity (or superiority) to the GNU Compiler Collection on modern x86 CPUs.
  
  --
  
  "I think this line is mostly filler"
79. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by turgid · 2014-01-09 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's not trolling when you are trying to educate someone about their misperceptions.
  The misperceptions lie with you.
  I never denied that the BSD-licensed code would remain available (and therefore it is not a problem with my story). I was referring to enhancements to that code that may be used to perform a bait-and-switch or embrace-and-extend move. You are deliberately ignoring that and de-emphasising the importance of the freedom of the user. It's a very common thing for businesses and other self-interested organisations to do.
  Why do you play down the importance of the freedom of the end user of the software? Why do you advocate that people should support BSD projects when it clearly has the potential to be against their interests
  Why should the "rights" of the rich and powerful to exploit others be more important than the rights and interests of everyone in general?
  We live in interesting times. We need more freedom and empowerment as individuals to support ourselves. Large companies are already far too powerful and concentrate the wealth in too few hands. They do not need our help. We need to protect ourselves.
  Advocating the BSD over the GPL for critical pieces of technological infrastructure that empower us all is madness.
  
  --
  Stick Men
80. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by Bill_the_Engineer · 2014-01-09 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  I was referring to enhancements to that code that may be used to perform a bait-and-switch or embrace-and-extend move. You are deliberately ignoring that and de-emphasising the importance of the freedom of the user. It's a very common thing for businesses and other self-interested organisations to do.
  Again we are full circle back to "So you're not upset that the current codebase will remain available as BSD. You just want everyone to be forced to make available all of their extensions or software that may use some portion of the code."
  You got your rights confused. BSD protects the user's right. GPL protects the developer's right.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
81. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by turgid · 2014-01-10 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  You got your rights confused. BSD protects the user's right. GPL protects the developer's right.
  No, not at all. You have completely mistaken the points I have been trying to make.
  The GPL protects the user's rights because it places no restrictions on their use of the program, it guarantees them access to the (machine-readable) source code for the program, it permits them to redistribute the program unmodified in binary form (as long as they make the source code for that release available along with it) and it permits them to modify the program for their own use. They only have to distribute their changed source code (again, in machine-readable form) if they distribute the modified binary.
  Thus the rights of any users of the derived work are preserved i.e. it's the gift that keeps on giving.
  The BSD license and its friends do not make this crucial guarantee (see my "scary story"). A certain Redmond-based software monopoly (convicted in courts the world over) has used this feature of the BSD license to wage its embrace-and-extend lock-in war campaign on the industry.
  This is very plain and simple to understand. It has been tested in court and a thriving ecosystem of FOSS has build up around it.
  You are the one who is confused.
  
  --
  Stick Men
82. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by Bill_the_Engineer · 2014-01-10 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  You contradicted yourself.
  
  The GPL protects the user's rights because it places no restrictions on their use of the program, it guarantees them access to the (machine-readable) source code for the program, it permits them to redistribute the program unmodified in binary form (as long as they make the source code for that release available along with it) and it permits them to modify the program for their own use. They only have to distribute their changed source code (again, in machine-readable form) if they distribute the modified binary.
  The requirement to make all changes available in source code is a restriction. BSD has no such restrictions. The restriction is there to protect the developer's rights not the user's.
  
  A certain Redmond-based software monopoly (convicted in courts the world over) has used this feature of the BSD license to wage its embrace-and-extend lock-in war campaign on the industry.
  Actually Microsoft employed EEE on protocols (Kerberos, HTML, etc) by introducing slight variations in the protocol or in HTML's case - Active X, and tried to do it with Java (remember J++ which morphed into C#?). GPL would not have prevented this.
  You worry about the infrastructure code being BSD. I just wanted to point out that a large portion of the user land utilities within Linux take advantage of BSD software.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
83. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by turgid · 2014-01-10 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  I did not contradict myself. The GPL ensures the continuing freedom of users to benefit from the code and any enhancements/modifications to the code made by others. It empowers the users to employ whoever they like (including themselves) to make further enhancements. Progress is ensured for all by standing on the shoulders of giants.
  This is not a restriction.
  The BSD makes no such provision.
  The requirement to make all changes available in source code is a restriction.... of the GPL.
  This is one of the features of Copyleft. It is not a restriction on the users.
  No one is required to make their changes in source code available under the GPL unless they distribute the modified binary. Everyone is perfectly free (individual, corporation, evil dictator, saint etc.) to make whatever changes they like to the code for their own use. If they choose to make that version available to others, then that's when they have to make their source changes available.
  Why are you having trouble understanding this?
  
  --
  Stick Men
84. Re:pretty quick on the C++14 support by Briareos · 2014-01-10 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  The NetBeans one only talks about navigation to the declaration of something, which is a very far cry from autocompletion, background compilation for error detection, showing up-to-date documentation etc. that having an AST and other data from parsing a file fully encompasses, and it seems like they use the debug info generated by GCC, but that is neither on-the-fly nor even near the level of detail you get with actually having a parsed representation of all your code available.
  The Eclipse one talks about their own implementation of a GCC-syntax-compatible scanner/parser they have implemented because they couldn't reuse the monolith that is GCC to use it to implement all the features I listed regarding NetBeans. They do use GCC for building the executable, of course.
  
  --
  "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole
85. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by Bill_the_Engineer · 2014-01-11 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  I understand exactly what you are saying and I disagree.
  I do not subscribe to the all software should be free of charge ideology. I consider the user being able to do anything they want to the code without restriction to be more free than the GPL's you can use are code as long as you make your changes available for free too. GPL protects the original developer of the code. The fact that it protects the ultimate users is very debatable. Especially since the original developer can offer dual licensing.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
86. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by turgid · 2014-01-11 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree with you too.
  I personally don't believe that all code should be free either. In my opinion, the GPL does more to ensure on-going freedom for the many (as opposed to the few) than the BSD license does.
  I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a BSD license (or family of licenses) or that people shouldn't use them.
  All I'm saying is that people should make an informed choice when they choose software and when they choose a software license.
  It is currently fashionable to disparage the GPL (and related licenses) and to spread FUD and misinformation about them.
  The fact that it protects the ultimate users is very debatable. Especially since the original developer can offer dual licensing.
  It's less debatable than you think
  
  --
  Stick Men
87. Re: pretty quick on the C++14 support by Bill_the_Engineer · 2014-01-11 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  I personally don't believe that all code should be free either. In my opinion, the GPL does more to ensure on-going freedom for the many (as opposed to the few) than the BSD license does.
  I don't think we disagree by much. My point is that the GPL enforces the developer's wishes not the user's. The GPL keeps source code open as the developer intended. I believe the difference in our opinions amount to "The GPL enforces the developer's wishes for user's ultimate good".
  
  It's less debatable than you think
  Let's agree to disagree on this point. Earlier you implied that GPL keeps extensions from being proprietary which is only half correct. Nothing prevents the copyright holder of the code to dual license the code and offer a crippled GPL version along side a more up-to-date or feature laden commercial version. GNAT is an example of this.
  In the end BSD and its cousins are more popular simply because it more closely aligns with the copyright holder's intention. They wrote something, thought it would be useful to someone else, made it available with very little strings attached, and made it free of some viral clause that make it incompatible with their intended license. Clang is a perfect example of this. Clang conforms to the C++11 standard by design and doesn't have any viral clauses that prevents it being incorporated in anyone's IDE or utility.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
How to always skip Slashdot Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 05:29 · Score: 0, Informative

http://slashdot.org/?nobeta=1
1. Re:How to always skip Slashdot Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Better yet, instead of having to append something to the url every time, just delete the betagroup cookies.
2. Re:How to always skip Slashdot Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 06:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  thanks alot, the beta is awful
LOL ... by gstoddart · 2014-01-07 05:30 · Score: 1, Funny

Every time I see that project name, I immediately think of the Simspons doing "Clang Clang went the trolley".

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  I must be old, I think of Judy Garland.
2. Re:LOL ... by gstoddart · 2014-01-07 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  I must be old, I think of Judy Garland.
  Much funnier when the Simpsons did it.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:*BSD is DOA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 06:35 · Score: 0

Buy a Mac and use XCode!
The One True Way by zakkudo · 2014-01-07 06:42 · Score: 2

I honestly don't think that GCC was made for you, Anonymous Coward. But that is also why it's nice that there are various options in the open source community...
I personally love command line compilation with gcc. Command line being a first class citizen means it's command line interface won't atrophy into a toy.
1. Re:The One True Way by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  Did you just call clang(1) a toy? Well, then let me tell you I enjoy playing with my toy. =)
Code Completion? Static Analysis? by glennrrr · 2014-01-07 07:09 · Score: 4, Informative

What's the code-completion situation in GCC these days, or the static analyzer situation? (I don't know.) Apple went with Clang at least in part because of not being able to get those features out of GCC without making Xcode GPL3 compliant, but I'd guess that an IDE with a compatible license might have a better shot at getting that information out of GCC. Code completion and static analysis are 2 of the great features of Xcode; I wouldn't want to go back to tools that didn't have either.
1. Re:Code Completion? Static Analysis? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  So can I build a cross-compiler toolchain for AVR micros with Clang yet?
2. Re:Code Completion? Static Analysis? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  What's the code-completion situation in GCC these days,
  Didn't you read? He only wants to compile his code, not to write it. ;-)
3. Re:Code Completion? Static Analysis? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, very funny. Just FYI, GCC is GNU Compiler Collection. Last time I checked a compiler didn't have to perform static analysis and provide code completion to third party apps. These are nice-to-have's but they are not even part of compiling source code and no sane person would call a compiler obsolete because it doesn't do those things. Might as well call Clang obsolete and useless because it doesn't do Java, Ada, Fortran, etc.
4. Re:Code Completion? Static Analysis? by glennrrr · 2014-01-07 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  So, if you don't like the word obsolete, what word would you prefer? Deficient? The problem as I understand it, and I'm not claiming any expertise in compiler design, is that GCC is deliberately architected to prevent useful re-use of the code which can syntactically analyze source code which shows up in the difficulty in using it to integrate it with an IDE in terms of things like error parsing, code completion, and static analysis. As a long time Xcode user, I can remember when Xcode's code completion was abysmal, and I can remember first running the new static analyzer on my then big source base and finding dozens of problems; problems I could fix before they were hard to reproduce errors seen by users. The difference between Xcode running LLVM/Clang and GCC is just night and day in terms of delivering on the promise and feature set of a modern IDE. I tend to think that if you had access to those features in your GCC centric environment, you'd quickly find them essential.
5. Re:Code Completion? Static Analysis? by kthreadd · 2014-01-07 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Might as well call Clang obsolete and useless because it doesn't do Java, Ada, Fortran, etc.
  The C in Clang stands for C, so it will probably never support those other languages. That's because Clang is just a frontend to LLVM. There are other frontends that implement those languages. Even GCC can act as a frontend to LLVM.
6. Re:Code Completion? Static Analysis? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  Just as well, the first C in GCC stands for compiler, not everything-you-would-ever-need-to-write-software.
7. Re:Code Completion? Static Analysis? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  I prefer judging a product based on its intended use. GCC is not an IDE, GCC is a set of compilers. Nowhere does it market itself as a complete software development solution that includes static analysis and code completion because those are historically features common to IDEs. You wouldn't call "ls" obsolete or deficient because it doesn't have "grep" functionality, would you? I don't have any evidence that GCC was deliberately architected to prevent any functionality from being implemented - do you? I don't believe projects like this are ever designed to impose such kinds of restrictions - it's not Microsoft, it's GNU. I could believe they probably didn't think about such features 20-30 years ago when GCC was originally designed and now there is either not that much demand for it within the GCC community or no resources to implement it or there may be a number of other reasons. Clang/LLVM were designed differently and they are delivering a great product, but in no way does that make GCC obsolete or deficient in areas it doesn't attempt to cover. As for Xcode, it's Mac only which is of no use to me - does it make Xcode obsolete or deficient? It's certainly useless for me no matter how good Clang is.
8. Re:Code Completion? Static Analysis? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 11:19 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I don't have any evidence that GCC was deliberately architected to prevent any functionality from being implemented - do you? I don't believe projects like this are ever designed to impose such kinds of restrictions - it's not Microsoft, it's GNU.
  A great deal of thought goes into the GCC license and GCC APIs that are exposed to third parties. Have a look at this and this. It is true that GCC has been designed and licensed to prevent integration with proprietary tools; Stallman et al. will not tolerate having GCC wired into some proprietary, closed source IDE and that fact guides their decisions about what APIs GCC provides and how GCC is licensed.
  The `proprietary' part was left out by the GP and others that make the claim that GCC is designed to prevent third party integration.
9. Re:Code Completion? Static Analysis? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 17:33 · Score: 0
  
  I have no problem with a GPL project not bending over to deliver free functionality to be used in proprietary products.
10. Re:Code Completion? Static Analysis? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 00:11 · Score: 0
  
  What you need is an LLVM-IR to AVR backend. http://sourceforge.net/projects/avr-llvm/ seems to be one that is ~95% complete and just needs to be brought into the main LLVM project. Or you can just compile this yourself.
11. Re:Code Completion? Static Analysis? by glennrrr · 2014-01-08 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  So this leaves my question still unresolved. Is there a non-proprietary GPLv3 IDE available which provides good code completion and useful static analysis? Have the steps GCC made to lock out proprietary use caused the product to be hard to integrate even with license compatible IDEs?
He can't by cripkd · 2014-01-07 08:30 · Score: 1

The license for the comment on which his comment is based forbids him from saying "secret sauce" one more time unfortunately.

--
Curiously yours, crip.
Everytime I see the word Clang by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 09:50 · Score: 0

I think that it is a Klingon word and needs to be translated..
Does this happen to anyone else?
No? It must just be me..
Not really obsolete by aaaaaaargh! · 2014-01-07 11:13 · Score: 2

For example, I'm sometimes programming in Ada, which clang doesn't really compile (at least when I looked last time). Moreover, gcc with -O2 or -O3 produces faster executables on my machine.
Mingw builds by FithisUX · 2014-01-07 14:21 · Score: 1

They seem to have stopped mingw builds and focus on clang-cl on windows. The problem is that you need the Windows SDK. With most other open source / free compilers this is not necessary. Personally I use mingw in both of its incarnations and the problem is that I cannot download a ready made binary. clang-cl is unusable without windows sdk. It is not compatible with lcc,pelles,openwatcom,digital mars c SDKs.
1. Re:Mingw builds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  So, since you're programming on Windows anyway, what's the problem with downloading and installing the Windows SDK? It's available from the MS site without registration or fees.
  - T
Let's flip your words and see how the quote change by zakkudo · 2014-01-07 16:18 · Score: 1

The GPL was explicitely written to protect developers and users, ensuring that they could modify software and mod it if it ever became unmaintained or whatever. Your example can have the words switched and few people would ever notice.
That's not really "choice" and "freedom" is it? That's what this comes down to - the BSD license protects the freedom of the *code* whereas the GPL protects the freedom of the *users and/or developers* of that code.