Why Clang

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
216 messages Options
12345 ... 11
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Mark Felder-4
Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter  
how loud you yell. The Clang decision is far-reaching and gives numerous  
advantages to the FreeBSD platform. It's also not been a waste of time;  
you're implying that the FreeBSD devs have spent thousands of hours  
hacking away at Clang which is far away from the fact. We're simply  
building upon their work, testing Clang on the codebase (and finding bugs  
GCC was hiding!!), and reporting any issues upstream which get fixed very  
very quickly.

If you want to recompile everything with lang/gcc (4.6.3) and the latest  
binutils go right ahead, but don't expect support when things go horribly  
pear-shaped.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Joe Gain
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Mark Felder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter
> how loud you yell. The Clang decision is far-reaching and gives numerous
> advantages to the FreeBSD platform. It's also not been a waste of time;
> you're implying that the FreeBSD devs have spent thousands of hours hacking
> away at Clang which is far away from the fact. We're simply building upon
> their work, testing Clang on the codebase (and finding bugs GCC was
> hiding!!), and reporting any issues upstream which get fixed very very
> quickly.
>
> If you want to recompile everything with lang/gcc (4.6.3) and the latest
> binutils go right ahead, but don't expect support when things go horribly
> pear-shaped.

Clang is a great set of compiler tools. If you are only a user, as you suggest,
than you shouldn't be compiling anything, just running binaries. If you are
using a compiler, than you may not be a developer, but you aren't just a user.

In any case, if you're not developing, like me, you don't really get a
say-- well,
you do, but probably nobody is listening.

http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/240001128


>
> _______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"



--
joe gain

jacob-burckhardt-str. 16
78464 konstanz
germany

+49 (0)7531 60389

(...otherwise in ???)
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Ajtim-2
Apple had no problem using a GPL v2 licensed compiler. It looks like they
have a huge problem using a GPL v3 licensed compiler.

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Joe Gain <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Mark Felder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter
> > how loud you yell. The Clang decision is far-reaching and gives numerous
> > advantages to the FreeBSD platform. It's also not been a waste of time;
> > you're implying that the FreeBSD devs have spent thousands of hours
> hacking
> > away at Clang which is far away from the fact. We're simply building upon
> > their work, testing Clang on the codebase (and finding bugs GCC was
> > hiding!!), and reporting any issues upstream which get fixed very very
> > quickly.
> >
> > If you want to recompile everything with lang/gcc (4.6.3) and the latest
> > binutils go right ahead, but don't expect support when things go horribly
> > pear-shaped.
>
> Clang is a great set of compiler tools. If you are only a user, as you
> suggest,
> than you shouldn't be compiling anything, just running binaries. If you are
> using a compiler, than you may not be a developer, but you aren't just a
> user.
>
> In any case, if you're not developing, like me, you don't really get a
> say-- well,
> you do, but probably nobody is listening.
>
> http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/240001128
>
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > [hidden email] mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> [hidden email]"
>
>
>
> --
> joe gain
>
> jacob-burckhardt-str. 16
> 78464 konstanz
> germany
>
> +49 (0)7531 60389
>
> (...otherwise in ???)
> _______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> [hidden email]"
>
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
>       > pear-shaped.
>
> Clang is a great set of compiler tools. If you are only a user, as you suggest,

as i suggested - i am a user of compiler. i do compile my own programs,
as well as programs from ports.

and i hate just telling something is white while it is at most grey.

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
In reply to this post by Mark Felder-4
> Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter how
> loud you yell.

gratification????  Seems like you ask for it.

> The Clang decision is far-reaching and gives numerous
> advantages to the FreeBSD platform.
for example what?

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Joe Gain
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Wojciech Puchar
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter
>> how loud you yell.
>
>
> gratification????  Seems like you ask for it.
>

This might be to gratuitous for most on the list, but diversity is almost
reason enough. And I don't mean this is some sort of fashion-way. I
think llvm and clang are interesting and serious projects.

Actually, to be honest, c programming with clang is really
nice, it gives me really nice error messages, which makes debugging
easier. I like it for that too.

>From a practical point of view, the only negative thing about using clang
is that some applications which have been written using gcc won't compile
using it, but gcc is also ok.

I'm not that interested in saving a few minutes compile time, or bytes of
memory.

>
>> The Clang decision is far-reaching and gives numerous advantages to the
>> FreeBSD platform.
>
> for example what?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"



--
joe gain

jacob-burckhardt-str. 16
78464 konstanz
germany

+49 (0)7531 60389

(...otherwise in ???)
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

David Brodbeck-2
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Wojciech Puchar
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> And the facts are: Lots of worktime were spent to make new C compiler from
> scratch and this resulted with thing 5 times larger, working at similar
> speed and producing similar code to GCC that is already considered bloat.

> The truth is sad. Starting from fresh and not being able to beat 25-year old
> bloated gcc is just funny.

Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
unable to beat a new compiler that's had almost none...
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Robison, Dave
GPL runs contrary to the nature and intent of the BSD style license.
Free and open software benefits us all.

Getting rid of GPL is a good thing, and well worth any (debatable)
performance hits.


--
Dave Robison
Sales Solution Architect II
FIS Banking Solutions
510/621-2089 (w)
530/518-5194 (c)
510/621-2020 (f)
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

_____________
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
In reply to this post by Joe Gain
>>
>> gratification????  Seems like you ask for it.
>>
>
> This might be to gratuitous for most on the list, but diversity is almost
> reason enough. And I don't mean this is some sort of fashion-way. I
> think llvm and clang are interesting and serious projects.

never told otherwise.

i just try to do what is really needed - something like "mythbusters"
would help greatly here.

clang is very good C compiler, but JUST NOT BETTER than gcc.
overall it is comparable. at most.

wouldn't it be better to say - well, clang is good and OK, and we are not
dependent of GNU communist licence v3 which is important.

But instead we here lies about incomparably better compiler. No it is not
better. it is at the same class, in some respect actually worse.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
In reply to this post by David Brodbeck-2
>> bloated gcc is just funny.
>
> Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
> unable to beat a new compiler that's had almost none...

none? so why it takes so much time to optimize?
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
In reply to this post by Robison, Dave
> GPL runs contrary to the nature and intent of the BSD style license.
> Free and open software benefits us all.

True. GPL is definitely not FREE software. Freedom doesn't have different
types. Something is free or it is not free.

GPL software is not free as i can not do whatever i want with it.

>
> Getting rid of GPL is a good thing, and well worth any (debatable)

I fully agree. So why all this lies about much higher performance and
others?

I don't consider CLANG to be a great success. I consider it acceptable
replacement of GCC.

i just hate hype and lies. ALWAYS.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Jakub Lach
That's interesting discussion.

I hit some cases where clang produced binaries were
clearly faster than those made with latest gcc. But it's far
from rule.

Where you have found statements that clang is always
faster than gcc?

From my perspective, it's almost as good OR better
than gcc, with potential for further improvement and
nice license, errors etc. Fair enough.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Robert Bonomi
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
> From [hidden email]  Mon Jun 18 11:39:03 2012
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:37:55 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar <[hidden email]>
> To: Mark Felder <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> >> I don't say clang is just bad, but i prefer real data over hype.
> >
> > This is the most memorable and impacting set of graphs that I remember. I
> > haven't followed the data much since.
> >
> > http://clang.llvm.org/performance-2008-10-31.html
> >
> > Now imagine having to rebuild projects constantly during your dev cycle. The
> > time savings is going to add up quick.
>
> still not read my mail where i actually compared it in real. or don't
> want?
>
> I really don't care about cool graphs but at facts for me as a USER (not
> developer) of C compiler.
>
> And the facts are: Lots of worktime were spent to make new C compiler from
> scratch and this resulted with thing 5 times larger,

*YOUR* measurement of sizes was faulty.  <grin>

>                                                      working at similar
> speed and producing similar code to GCC that is already considered bloat.
> The truth is sad. Starting from fresh and not being able to beat 25-year
> old bloated gcc is just funny.

You _do_ understand that they could not use -any- of the technology
implementations in GCC, that they had to redevelop everything from
scratch, right?

I'm sure that you _also_ are aware that a larger program size does *NOT*
necessarily mean 'bloat'.  

That 'optimizing for speed', which can, and does, result in code that is
larger than the unoptimized code, is not 'bloat'.

That increasing the clarity of explanations in error messages -- which
takes more words -- is not 'bloat'.  

That additional logic to more precisely identify -what- error occured, and
provide a 'better' identification/explanation, compared to just 'parse error
near {token}', is not 'bloat'.

That writing code for clarity and *maintainability*, even if it incurs
some 'cost' in increased size, is not 'bloat'.  

That doing things the 'long way', rather than the 'short way', because it
is necessary for _compete_ compliance with a standard, it not 'bloat'.

The fact that this _totally_new_ implementation runs roughly as fast and
generates similar quality code to a package that has undergone over
two-and-a-half_decades of tweaking and polishing -- well, it is little
short of miraculous that it is -that- good, _that_ quickly.

Feel free to demonstrate that _you_ can do it better, faster, AND smaller.
*WITHOUT* lifting anything from any existing, copyrigthted, code that is.z

> That's my view - as a final "consumer", not developer. My view is that
> bloatware is replaced by another bloatware, which - because of it's young
> age - have greater future potential of bloat than GCC.

Obviously, you would then prefer to use a compiler which eliminated the text
of all the information/warning/error messages and replaced all those messages
with just 'Error: {number}' -- or, even shorter, just 'E{number}' -- which
was done in the name of reducing that dreaded 'bloat'.  (The reduction in in
executable size from this approach can be _surprisingly_ large).

Obviously, you would also prefer to use a compiler which 'gave up' and aborted
the entire compile after reporting the first fatal error. This will eliminate
all that dreaded 'bloat' involved with unwinding the parse state, and all
the other 'overhead' stuff you have to do to be able to "sort-of" continue
parsing the rest of the source file.

> This tens or hundreds of thousands of work-hours could be spent far better
> by getting latest gcc available on GPLv2 licence and start from there,

That *cannot* be done.  There is simply *NO* way to license anything derived
from a GPLv3 product under GPLv2.  The GPL itself expressly forbids it.

Thus, one would have to _start_ with a GPLv2 compiler and *independently*
create all the changes/improvements that have been made since that GPLv2
version was released.  This is a _far_ bigger project than converting to
the use of a different, but _more_standards_compliant_, compiler.


_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Mark Felder-4
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:29:36 -0500, Wojciech Puchar  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> none? so why it takes so much time to optimize?

I don't think you understand how compilers work or the concept that new  
programming methodologies have been developed over the last 25 years, so  
this conversation is going to get stuck in a loop.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
In reply to this post by Jakub Lach
> That's interesting discussion.
>
> I hit some cases where clang produced binaries were
> clearly faster than those made with latest gcc. But it's far
> from rule.

i did few more test on common unix tools, or my programs and results are
that by average there are just as fast within 1% range.

by average it is just like gcc both im compiling speed and execution
speed.

> Where you have found statements that clang is always
> faster than gcc?

from that mailing list - mostly from mark fedler. He even showed me some
nice graphs to "prove" it - graphs showed speed of -O0 compilation.

>
>> From my perspective, it's almost as good OR better
> than gcc, with potential for further improvement and
> nice license, errors etc. Fair enough.
actually good licence is for me the only adventage over gcc.

But yes - it is great adventage.


_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
In reply to this post by Robert Bonomi
>> scratch and this resulted with thing 5 times larger,
>
> *YOUR* measurement of sizes was faulty.  <grin>

be more exact.

>> old bloated gcc is just funny.
>
> You _do_ understand that they could not use -any- of the technology
> implementations in GCC, that they had to redevelop everything from
> scratch, right?

even stated this.

> I'm sure that you _also_ are aware that a larger program size does *NOT*
> necessarily mean 'bloat'.

of course. really i can write programs.

and really - i don't understand all this fuss about "better error
reporting".

Really i don't have problems to read gcc error messages when i compile my
programs.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
In reply to this post by Mark Felder-4
>
>> none? so why it takes so much time to optimize?
>
> I don't think you understand how compilers work or the concept that new
> programming methodologies have been developed over the last 25 years, so this
> conversation is going to get stuck in a loop.

Right. You just behave as defender of CLANG people that will not be paid
because of not really good work. but it is free project isn't it?
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Chad Perrin
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:30:23PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>scratch and this resulted with thing 5 times larger,
> >
> >*YOUR* measurement of sizes was faulty.  <grin>
>
> be more exact.

I believe Robert Bonomi (you didn't include attribution for the previous
email, I notice) *was* more exact, in that the rest of his email
explained what he thought of your glossing over the various factors that
might contribute to binary size.

I notice you ignored most of it in your response, too.


> >
> >I'm sure that you _also_ are aware that a larger program size does *NOT*
> >necessarily mean 'bloat'.
>
> of course. really i can write programs.
>
> and really - i don't understand all this fuss about "better error
> reporting".
>
> Really i don't have problems to read gcc error messages when i
> compile my programs.

I can generally puzzle out what caused various GCC warning and error
messages when trying to compile my own code, given comparison of what's
going on in the messages with what's going on in my code and reasoning
through the connections between different parts of the code.  That sort
of thing is required probably 70% of the time, in my experience.

With Clang, by contrast, I find that's required only about 20% to 30% of
the time.  Otherwise, the warning and error messages tend to get me a lot
closer to the actual point of failure than GCC.

*That* is what "all this fuss about 'better error reporting'" is about.

--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Julian H. Stacey-3
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
> GNU communist licence for C compiler is not bad at all (contrary to other
......^^^^^^^^^
......^^^^^^^^^

> software).

I & many others _Know_ what BSD & FSF licenses are.  
Don't wwant repeated nonsense about 'communism'.

        If you didn't subscribe
                http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain
        before the GCC V Clang decision was made,  your views now irrelevant.

        If you still must emit noise about licenses subscribe
                http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy

        Best subscribe & follow up about communism to
                http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
        or /dev/null
               
Cheers,
Julian
--
Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com
 Reply below not above, cumulative like a play script, & indent with "> ".
 Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable.
        Mail from @yahoo dumped @berklix.  http://berklix.org/yahoo/
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Julian H. Stacey-3
In reply to this post by Thomas D. Dean
Sorry, my last header wrongly to Mark Felder, & could give
the wrong impression.  I would like Wojciech Puchar (not Mark F.)
to stop banging on about 'GNU communist licence' etc.

Cheers,
Julian
--
Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com
 Reply below not above, cumulative like a play script, & indent with "> ".
 Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable.
        Mail from @yahoo dumped @berklix.  http://berklix.org/yahoo/
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
12345 ... 11