Why Clang

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
216 messages Options
1234567 ... 11
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Polytropon
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>
> > GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
> > code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
> > but not to be turned into closed source products.
>
> What a lying sonofabitch.

By insulting you think your arguments get any better? Sorry,
it's not the case.



> That is not called freedom. That is called
> "forcible, viral open source".

That's what I initially called "viral license" (or which, to
be precise, is a phrase someone else invented, and which I
just repeated).

A developer is always the key person to decide what he will
do with his source code. Giving it for free WITH NO SPECIAL
RESTRICTIONS is a very generous act. (Note that this act does
not mean he gives up copyright, the attribution that _he_ was
the creator of the code!)

If a developer wants to donate his work to the public, but does
not want others to make money with his work, he will probably
choose the GPL to release the source code. Others are allowed
to modify it, to create derivate works and even use it in their
products, as long as the requirement (which you may validly see
as a restriction!) of "contribution back" is met.

A much more strict requirement seems to be in the GPLv3 which
limits those who "take" the open source. The "aspect of being
viral" includes that the source will not be turned into closed
source. The most negative effect is that GPLv3 licensed components
may have side effects of non-GLPv3 licensed code. This is something
worth seeing critically.



> I think we can all see the difference. Open
> your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...

All those insults fly back to you and therefore apply to you.
It makes all your argumentation (which may be valid) futile.
In fact, that kind of acting is a typical means of communist
dictatures - using insulting language to actually avoid any
discussion and instead strengthen the means of oppression!
You should learn some history. And maybe calm down, as the
hatred you're spreading is really unpleasant.



> > A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will
> > typically use the BSD license which is "more free".
>
> No, it's just plain "free."

Among the many licenses, the BSD license seems to be the most
free license (or, the "only free license", which is a valid
point of view), as it explicitely allows things that the GPL
does not.

Of course, there are different interpretations if this is a
good or a bad thing. For a system like FreeBSD that wants to
offer a free system (in the widest sense), GPLv3 system
components (such as compilers) could be a no-go.



> > BSDL in opposite is often criticized a "rape me license".
>
> No, it is not, except perhaps by lying atheist Marxist bastards and his
> religious adherents.

By "no, except" you have actually agreed that the statement is
true, even if you tried to deny it. Again, please try to have
some culture in discussion. Maybe you should also read Marx. :-)



> > It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed
> > source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code
> > can be a key component in a proprietary closed source
> > product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance),
> > and nobody will find out about that fact.
>
> Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is
> about letting them do what /they/ want.

Licensing is about choosing - a main criteria of a free society.
A developer is free to even keep his sources closed, to release
them as GPL v2 or v3, or as BSDL (or choose from other licenses,
or even write his own).

In the next step, licenses have impact on how sources can be used.
As I did explain, GPLv3 code may be problematic in this regards in
certain environments. It may perfectly fit in others. As long as
there's an agreement of the users of such source to accept the
license, it's okay.

What's _not_ okay is when the license forces you to do something
you don't want to do, or simply can't do.



> Let's see if you can guess which one
> of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing
> people to do what you want.

If people don't do what I want, they're limiting my freedom. :-)

Seriously, you should pay more attention to what I wrote. Even
though English is not my native language, I try to be as precise
as possible, and if I can't do that (because a lack of knowledge,
because of assumptions or deduction), I make clear that it is not
the case. Hint: Read carefully: "I think", "as far as I know" or
similar formulas are an indicator.

Finally: Insulting me is not a way to go. It shows that you don't
value the freedom of speech. Of course you are free to say whatever
you want. But as soon as you insult people and limit their freedom,
maybe even their right (moral right, not law) to have a polite and
normal discussion on this list, you're not any better than the
communists you hate that much.


--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
_______________________________________________
[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

Евгений Лактанов
In reply to this post by Anonymous Remailer (austria)
20.06.2012 00:06, Anonymous Remailer (austria) пишет:

>> GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
>> code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
>> but not to be turned into closed source products.
> What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
> "forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see the difference. Open
> your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...
>
>> A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will
>> typically use the BSD license which is "more free".
> No, it's just plain "free."
>
>> BSDL in opposite is often criticized a "rape me license".
> No, it is not, except perhaps by lying atheist Marxist bastards and his
> religious adherents.
>
>> It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed
>> source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code
>> can be a key component in a proprietary closed source
>> product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance),
>> and nobody will find out about that fact.
> Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is
> about letting them do what /they/ want. Let's see if you can guess which one
> of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing
> people to do what you want.
>
> _______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
>
Mmmmm, all that rage, all that conspiracy crap and especially the
hypocrisy! I love it, this is here, my friends, a daily dose of quality
entertainment.
P.S. Topic is pretty much dead

_______________________________________________
[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

Евгений Лактанов
In reply to this post by Polytropon
20.06.2012 00:50, Polytropon пишет:

> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>>> GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
>>> code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
>>> but not to be turned into closed source products.
>> What a lying sonofabitch.
> By insulting you think your arguments get any better? Sorry,
> it's not the case.
>
>
>
>> That is not called freedom. That is called
>> "forcible, viral open source".
> That's what I initially called "viral license" (or which, to
> be precise, is a phrase someone else invented, and which I
> just repeated).
>
> A developer is always the key person to decide what he will
> do with his source code. Giving it for free WITH NO SPECIAL
> RESTRICTIONS is a very generous act. (Note that this act does
> not mean he gives up copyright, the attribution that _he_ was
> the creator of the code!)
>
> If a developer wants to donate his work to the public, but does
> not want others to make money with his work, he will probably
> choose the GPL to release the source code. Others are allowed
> to modify it, to create derivate works and even use it in their
> products, as long as the requirement (which you may validly see
> as a restriction!) of "contribution back" is met.
>
> A much more strict requirement seems to be in the GPLv3 which
> limits those who "take" the open source. The "aspect of being
> viral" includes that the source will not be turned into closed
> source. The most negative effect is that GPLv3 licensed components
> may have side effects of non-GLPv3 licensed code. This is something
> worth seeing critically.
>
>
>
>> I think we can all see the difference. Open
>> your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...
> All those insults fly back to you and therefore apply to you.
> It makes all your argumentation (which may be valid) futile.
> In fact, that kind of acting is a typical means of communist
> dictatures - using insulting language to actually avoid any
> discussion and instead strengthen the means of oppression!
> You should learn some history. And maybe calm down, as the
> hatred you're spreading is really unpleasant.
>
>
>
>>> A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will
>>> typically use the BSD license which is "more free".
>> No, it's just plain "free."
> Among the many licenses, the BSD license seems to be the most
> free license (or, the "only free license", which is a valid
> point of view), as it explicitely allows things that the GPL
> does not.
>
> Of course, there are different interpretations if this is a
> good or a bad thing. For a system like FreeBSD that wants to
> offer a free system (in the widest sense), GPLv3 system
> components (such as compilers) could be a no-go.
>
>
>
>>> BSDL in opposite is often criticized a "rape me license".
>> No, it is not, except perhaps by lying atheist Marxist bastards and his
>> religious adherents.
> By "no, except" you have actually agreed that the statement is
> true, even if you tried to deny it. Again, please try to have
> some culture in discussion. Maybe you should also read Marx. :-)
>
>
>
>>> It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed
>>> source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code
>>> can be a key component in a proprietary closed source
>>> product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance),
>>> and nobody will find out about that fact.
>> Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is
>> about letting them do what /they/ want.
> Licensing is about choosing - a main criteria of a free society.
> A developer is free to even keep his sources closed, to release
> them as GPL v2 or v3, or as BSDL (or choose from other licenses,
> or even write his own).
>
> In the next step, licenses have impact on how sources can be used.
> As I did explain, GPLv3 code may be problematic in this regards in
> certain environments. It may perfectly fit in others. As long as
> there's an agreement of the users of such source to accept the
> license, it's okay.
>
> What's _not_ okay is when the license forces you to do something
> you don't want to do, or simply can't do.
>
>
>
>> Let's see if you can guess which one
>> of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing
>> people to do what you want.
> If people don't do what I want, they're limiting my freedom. :-)
>
> Seriously, you should pay more attention to what I wrote. Even
> though English is not my native language, I try to be as precise
> as possible, and if I can't do that (because a lack of knowledge,
> because of assumptions or deduction), I make clear that it is not
> the case. Hint: Read carefully: "I think", "as far as I know" or
> similar formulas are an indicator.
>
> Finally: Insulting me is not a way to go. It shows that you don't
> value the freedom of speech. Of course you are free to say whatever
> you want. But as soon as you insult people and limit their freedom,
> maybe even their right (moral right, not law) to have a polite and
> normal discussion on this list, you're not any better than the
> communists you hate that much.
>
>
People like that have a very-very skewered views on freedom ... One can
say hypocritical and immature
_______________________________________________
[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

Polytropon
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:09:11 +0400, Евгений Лактанов wrote:

> 20.06.2012 00:50, Polytropon пишет:
> > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> >>> GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
> >>> code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
> >>> but not to be turned into closed source products.
> >> What a lying sonofabitch.
> > By insulting you think your arguments get any better? Sorry,
> > it's not the case.
> >
> >
> >
> >> That is not called freedom. That is called
> >> "forcible, viral open source".
> > That's what I initially called "viral license" (or which, to
> > be precise, is a phrase someone else invented, and which I
> > just repeated).
> >
> > A developer is always the key person to decide what he will
> > do with his source code. Giving it for free WITH NO SPECIAL
> > RESTRICTIONS is a very generous act. (Note that this act does
> > not mean he gives up copyright, the attribution that _he_ was
> > the creator of the code!)
> >
> > If a developer wants to donate his work to the public, but does
> > not want others to make money with his work, he will probably
> > choose the GPL to release the source code. Others are allowed
> > to modify it, to create derivate works and even use it in their
> > products, as long as the requirement (which you may validly see
> > as a restriction!) of "contribution back" is met.
> >
> > A much more strict requirement seems to be in the GPLv3 which
> > limits those who "take" the open source. The "aspect of being
> > viral" includes that the source will not be turned into closed
> > source. The most negative effect is that GPLv3 licensed components
> > may have side effects of non-GLPv3 licensed code. This is something
> > worth seeing critically.
> >
> >
> >
> >> I think we can all see the difference. Open
> >> your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...
> > All those insults fly back to you and therefore apply to you.
> > It makes all your argumentation (which may be valid) futile.
> > In fact, that kind of acting is a typical means of communist
> > dictatures - using insulting language to actually avoid any
> > discussion and instead strengthen the means of oppression!
> > You should learn some history. And maybe calm down, as the
> > hatred you're spreading is really unpleasant.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will
> >>> typically use the BSD license which is "more free".
> >> No, it's just plain "free."
> > Among the many licenses, the BSD license seems to be the most
> > free license (or, the "only free license", which is a valid
> > point of view), as it explicitely allows things that the GPL
> > does not.
> >
> > Of course, there are different interpretations if this is a
> > good or a bad thing. For a system like FreeBSD that wants to
> > offer a free system (in the widest sense), GPLv3 system
> > components (such as compilers) could be a no-go.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> BSDL in opposite is often criticized a "rape me license".
> >> No, it is not, except perhaps by lying atheist Marxist bastards and his
> >> religious adherents.
> > By "no, except" you have actually agreed that the statement is
> > true, even if you tried to deny it. Again, please try to have
> > some culture in discussion. Maybe you should also read Marx. :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >>> It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed
> >>> source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code
> >>> can be a key component in a proprietary closed source
> >>> product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance),
> >>> and nobody will find out about that fact.
> >> Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is
> >> about letting them do what /they/ want.
> > Licensing is about choosing - a main criteria of a free society.
> > A developer is free to even keep his sources closed, to release
> > them as GPL v2 or v3, or as BSDL (or choose from other licenses,
> > or even write his own).
> >
> > In the next step, licenses have impact on how sources can be used.
> > As I did explain, GPLv3 code may be problematic in this regards in
> > certain environments. It may perfectly fit in others. As long as
> > there's an agreement of the users of such source to accept the
> > license, it's okay.
> >
> > What's _not_ okay is when the license forces you to do something
> > you don't want to do, or simply can't do.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Let's see if you can guess which one
> >> of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing
> >> people to do what you want.
> > If people don't do what I want, they're limiting my freedom. :-)
> >
> > Seriously, you should pay more attention to what I wrote. Even
> > though English is not my native language, I try to be as precise
> > as possible, and if I can't do that (because a lack of knowledge,
> > because of assumptions or deduction), I make clear that it is not
> > the case. Hint: Read carefully: "I think", "as far as I know" or
> > similar formulas are an indicator.
> >
> > Finally: Insulting me is not a way to go. It shows that you don't
> > value the freedom of speech. Of course you are free to say whatever
> > you want. But as soon as you insult people and limit their freedom,
> > maybe even their right (moral right, not law) to have a polite and
> > normal discussion on this list, you're not any better than the
> > communists you hate that much.
> >
> >
> People like that have a very-very skewered views on freedom ... One can
> say hypocritical and immature

I assume it's just an aspect of "still being too young" in
regards of missing the difference between freedom and
anarchy: the right to extend one's freedom is limited
as soon as it limits the freedom of others. Maybe another
aspect is the lack of discussion culture and the proper
use of means of language. You often find such behaviour
among school children of the lower grades. Using words
without knowing their meaning is very typical for people
in puberty. :-)



Okay, to try to come back on topic, especially regarding
the use of CLANG as a system compiler: I recently read
the following interesting article which I want to throw
into the discussion:

        John Regehr:
        The Little C Function From Hell
        http://blog.regehr.org/archives/482

It's more a minor observation than an evaluation of CLANG,
but this article shows a significant change of how CLANG
handles (char) meeting it's margin CHAR_MAX vs. (int) in
a C function call. The impressing thing here is that CLANG
2.7 vs. rev. 126534 seems to bring a massive change on how
the compiler handles certain boundaries and implicit type
conversions.

I _may_ assume that this is something "quite normal" during
the evolution and improvement of a compiler, but it could
become critical when used at system level. If FreeBSD chooses
CLANG as the default system compiler and the primary compiler
for ports (instead of sticking with the "well proven", but
old GCC, and _not_ moving to a newer GPLv3 GCC), I hope the
performed tests have made sure that the new compiler will
work properly in all imaginable cases.

Finally, the article illustrates that the depicted bug has
been corrected in LLVM/CLANG within 24 hours, which is a good
thing, and it emphasizes _quality_ of the product, which is
the right attitude in my opinion.




--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
_______________________________________________
[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 Anonymous Remailer (austria)
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:06:49PM +0200, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> >
> > GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
> > code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
> > but not to be turned into closed source products.
>
> What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
> "forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see the difference. Open
> your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...

Give him a break.  His heart is in the right place, though his choice of
phrasing may have been imperfect in this case.  He was, it seems to me,
trying to take an even-handed approach to describing the positions of
both sides of a contentious matter, and letting the reader make up his or
her own mind about it.  In fact, if there's any bias showing in what he
said, I think it leans toward copyfree licenses like the various BSD
licenses, rather than toward copyleft licenses such as the various GNU
licenses.

There are better targets than Polytropon for your ire.


> >
> > A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will
> > typically use the BSD license which is "more free".
>
> No, it's just plain "free."

This would seem like a much more reasonable statement if it was not
preceded by your immediately prior invective.


> >
> > BSDL in opposite is often criticized a "rape me license".
>
> No, it is not, except perhaps by lying atheist Marxist bastards and his
> religious adherents.

Yes, it is often criticized that way -- by people who, in my considered
opinion, have their heads up their asses -- and the fact that Polytropon
pointed out this simple fact does not make him a bad person.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the people who make such ridiculous
comments about copyfree licenses are often not atheists, Marxists, or
bastards.  They're often just nuts.

. . . and what's wrong with being an atheist?  I'm not an atheist (more
of an agnostic Taoist), but if someone wants to believe he or she has
absolute knowledge of the (non-)existence of any god, that's his or her
prerogative.  I would judge such a person no more harshly than a devoted
monotheist.  Your beliefs are your own affair; only your behavior, as it
affects other people, is of particular concern to me.  In the particular
venue of a FreeBSD mailing list, my interest narrows further to exclude
things that have nothing to do with FreeBSD and associated software,
community, and so on.  I don't see how "atheist" is a meaningful insult,
especially when we're talking about software, or how it can be gleaned
from someone's licensing preferences.


> >
> > It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed
> > source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code
> > can be a key component in a proprietary closed source
> > product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance),
> > and nobody will find out about that fact.
>
> Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is
> about letting them do what /they/ want. Let's see if you can guess which one
> of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing
> people to do what you want.

This would probably be a better-received statement if the rest of your
commentary in the same email was not mostly about (probably entirely
inaccurate) insults flung at someone for failing to use the specific
phrasing you prefer when referring to the crazies who believe using
software distributed under a copyfree license is an act of pure evil.

--
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
|

CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program

Wojciech Puchar-5
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
i tested your test program, and in that case, contrary to testing common
unix programs, difference is far higher showing gcc superiority.

i did this test with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang and FreeBSD 9 supplied gcc.

clearly shows that clang actually cannot do more agressive optimization
(that trades space) at all, and at -O2 is far slower.




produced:

-rwxr-xr-x  1 tmp  tmp  11168 20 cze 06:18 test.cc.O2
-rwxr-xr-x  1 tmp  tmp  17024 20 cze 06:18 test.cc.O3
-rwxr-xr-x  1 tmp  tmp  17024 20 cze 06:18 test.cc.O9
-rwxr-xr-x  1 tmp  tmp  11096 20 cze 06:18 test.clang.O2
-rwxr-xr-x  1 tmp  tmp  11096 20 cze 06:18 test.clang.O3


cc.O2:


real    0m2.877s
user    0m2.829s
sys     0m0.030s

cc.O3:

real    0m2.142s
user    0m2.131s
sys     0m0.000s


cc.09:

real    0m2.071s
user    0m2.054s
sys     0m0.008s


clang.O2:

real    0m3.440s
user    0m3.405s
sys     0m0.018s

clang.O3:

real    0m3.217s
user    0m3.205s
sys     0m0.001s




How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds?

>From what i know now GPLv3 isn't really a problem for us, your may freely
distribute binary only software compiled by latest gcc.
_______________________________________________
[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: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program

Erich Dollansky-2
Hi,

On Wednesday 20 June 2012 11:26:13 Wojciech Puchar wrote:

> How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds?

what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree?

Erich
_______________________________________________
[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 Chad Perrin
>>> but not to be turned into closed source products.
>>
>> What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
>> "forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see the difference. Open
>> your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...
>
> Give him a break.  His heart is in the right place, though his choice of

GNU licence is nothing about freedom, it just says it is freedom.

But what really is important for FreeBSD is if it can be used. IMHO
nothing from GPLv3 prevents it, and it is no licence based reasons to use
clang.
_______________________________________________
[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: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program

Wojciech Puchar-5
In reply to this post by Erich Dollansky-2
>
>> How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds?
>
> what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree?

what is a problem as clang is in the ports tree?

the problem is that these compilers are not 100% compatible and soon if
clang will be default it will be not just easy to build freebsd with gcc.
_______________________________________________
[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: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program

Adam Vande More
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Wojciech Puchar <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> i tested your test program, and in that case, contrary to testing common
> unix programs, difference is far higher showing gcc superiority.
>
> i did this test with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang and FreeBSD 9 supplied gcc.
>
> clearly shows that clang actually cannot do more agressive optimization
> (that trades space) at all, and at -O2 is far slower.
>

Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc.  Is that in
dispute or something?  Or is this just repetition in case we didn't hear
you the first time?

Try thinking of the transition as a step back to take many steps forward.
 Or just change your compiler.  Complaining on this list is definitely the
wrong place though.  Those who have offended your sensibilities by moving
to Clang don't live here.

People have already done nice work on the benchmarks:

http://blog.vx.sk/archives/25-FreeBSD-Compiler-Benchmark-gcc-base-vs-gcc-ports-vs-clang.html

--
Adam Vande More
_______________________________________________
[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: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program

Wojciech Puchar-5
> Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc.  Is that in dispute or something?  Or is this just repetition in case we
> didn't hear you the first time?

just yesterday i've heard lots of otherwise claim.

>
> Try thinking of the transition as a step back to take many steps forward.

What exactly step forward it means?
For now i see ONLY politics and aggression after pointing out facts.

This doesn't look like serious behaviour of serious people.

>  Or just change your compiler.
Will i be able to compile FreeBSD base system with gcc after some time?
not sure.

_______________________________________________
[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: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program

Erich Dollansky-2
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
Hi,

On Wednesday 20 June 2012 11:46:20 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >> How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds?
> >
> > what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree?
>
> what is a problem as clang is in the ports tree?

for the port? It does not make a difference.
>
> the problem is that these compilers are not 100% compatible and soon if
> clang will be default it will be not just easy to build freebsd with gcc.

For the kernel?

How old is the gcc which comes with the kernel?

Why are newer versions not in the base system?

Erich
_______________________________________________
[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: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program

Joe Gain
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Wojciech Puchar
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc.  Is that in
>> dispute or something?  Or is this just repetition in case we
>> didn't hear you the first time?
>
>
> just yesterday i've heard lots of otherwise claim.
>
>
>>
>> Try thinking of the transition as a step back to take many steps forward.
>
>
> What exactly step forward it means?
> For now i see ONLY politics and aggression after pointing out facts.
>
> This doesn't look like serious behaviour of serious people.
>

I think that this is a more complicated decision than just choosing the
'fastest' compiler. There are many other variables involved, and of course
the decision has a political dimension. Most things do.

Diversity and competition are nice attributes to have in a system. Having
alternatives allows users choose a compiler based on what criteria they
think are important. Users also benefit from the experience, but more
importantly, for such non-trivial projects as LLVM, different designs are
interesting in themselves. I personally, am looking forward to seeing what
the lldb debugger can do. Historically, some of the most important software
projects have been themselves disasters, but they've lead people to change
the way they think about a problem and lead to later better solutions-- for
example MULTICS ;) This is part of the development process.

And this can't just happen in a laboratory. LLVM needs projects like FreeBSD
to test it and simply be involved. I notice that bitrig, which recently
forked from OpenBSD, and which want to be a more progressive operating
system will also be swapping to LLVM and Clang. We don't know what possible
benefits there will be from the LLVM project. But there will be some.

I was a bit frustrated about being stuck with gcc4.2 for a while, and was
trying to compile as many ports as possible using gcc4.6 (FreeBSD 8.2).
There seemed to be some improvement in performance, but now I don't bother,
world is compiled with Clang and the ports are compiled with gcc4.2 and
everything works (most of the time.) I'm satisfied with performance.

I don't really understand your concerns. I mean unless you're a fairly
radical environmentalist and are really concerned about saving every
clock-cycle, running a bit slower really isn't that much of a problem most
of the time.


>
>>  Or just change your compiler.
>
> Will i be able to compile FreeBSD base system with gcc after some time?
> not sure.
>
> _______________________________________________
> [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: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program

Adam Vande More
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Wojciech Puchar <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc.  Is that in
>> dispute or something?  Or is this just repetition in case we
>> didn't hear you the first time?
>>
>
> just yesterday i've heard lots of otherwise claim.
>
>
>
>> Try thinking of the transition as a step back to take many steps forward.
>>
>
> What exactly step forward it means?
>

These are a few:

http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html#gcc

And the performance overall in clang is gaining more rapidly than gcc.  At
it's present rate, it won't be long until your are complaining for clang to
be the default if that is your primary objection.  Other factors have
pushed this change into motion sooner than perhaps desirable for some.
 However, it is inevitable given the licensing barriers and the project's
long term goals.  Eliminating, or at least not being dependent on a GNU
toolchain.  GPL v3 brings with it a whole host problems such as:

http://www.tech-faq.com/linux-licensing-in-conflict-with-secure-boot-support.html

Those licensing issues may not be an issue for you, but they are for many
of the targets FreeBSD wishes to serve so keeping the base system as
unpolluted as possible is important.

--
Adam Vande More
_______________________________________________
[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

Fernando Apesteguía
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Wojciech Puchar
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>>>
>>> Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
>>
>>
>> As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
>> often called a "viral license". Software linking against v3
>> libraries and so maybe programs compiled by a v3 compiler
>> will have - according to the license - to be released as
>> v3 too.
>
> This word: "MAYBE" is most crucial here.

I don't see how GPLv3 is viral.

Here[1] we can read a program linking agains a gpl v3 library should be released
under the gplv3 too. However, the only concern would be when the program is
implicitly linked against libgcc right? Well, there's even an
exception[2] for this.

I'm not saying moving to clang is a bad idea. I just don't think the
viral license
argumentation is strong enough.

Can anyone provide an example of viral propagation of the license if we compile
the base system with a gpl v3 gcc?

Thanks.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
[2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LibGCCException

>
> wouldn't it be just simplest solution to ask GNU leader for clearing it out?
>
> i wouldn't be surprised that FreeBSD team would decide to go back to gcc
> soon.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> [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
> Here[1] we can read a program linking agains a gpl v3 library should be released
> under the gplv3 too. However, the only concern would be when the program is
> implicitly linked against libgcc right? Well, there's even an
> exception[2] for this.
>
this is exactly how i understand that. Anyway DragonFly BSD developers
(which is BSD licenced) don't have any problems and just use latest gcc.

> I'm not saying moving to clang is a bad idea.

I am saying this. Moving to worse compiler is a definitely bad idea.

This is not a place of politics. As GPLv3 doesn't prevent it from being
used in FreeBSD and is better - it should be used. It's simple.

If clang would be better - it should be used.

> Can anyone provide an example of viral propagation of the license if we compile
> the base system with a gpl v3 gcc?
>
there are none probably.

Before actually testing it i believed we move to clang because it is
better compiler AND and supported a move. Good lesson to test first and
don't believe, even with FreeBSD.
_______________________________________________
[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: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program

Wojciech Puchar-5
In reply to this post by Adam Vande More
> long term goals.  Eliminating, or at least not being dependent on a GNU
> toolchain.  GPL v3 brings with it a whole host problems such as:

As you already know i don't like GPL very much. As i already said for me
GNU is computer communism.

But like or not like, i don't prefer my likeness above facts and FreeBSD
performance. And the facts are against clang.

BUT PLEASE stop offtopic explaining about secure boot problems  and answer
one clear question:

What exactly GPLv3 have wrong that we can use gcc in longer term for
FreeBSD system?

OK? Can you just answer that simple question clearly?
_______________________________________________
[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: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program

Adam Vande More
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Wojciech Puchar <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> OK? Can you just answer that simple question clearly?
>

Yes Wojciech, I can attempt an answer for you.  Pay attention, this gets
very complex.

The decision to move to Clang was motivated by what is best for the
project, and not what is best for Wojciech.

--
Adam Vande More
_______________________________________________
[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: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program

Wojciech Puchar-5
>
>
> Yes Wojciech, I can attempt an answer for you.  Pay attention, this gets very complex.
> The decision to move to Clang was motivated by what is best for the project, and not what is best for Wojciech.
still not stopped personal attacks (last part of last sentence) but lets
forget.

So please give an answer - not summary.


_______________________________________________
[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

Volodymyr Kostyrko
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
Wojciech Puchar wrote:

>> Here[1] we can read a program linking agains a gpl v3 library should
>> be released
>> under the gplv3 too. However, the only concern would be when the
>> program is
>> implicitly linked against libgcc right? Well, there's even an
>> exception[2] for this.
>>
> this is exactly how i understand that. Anyway DragonFly BSD developers
> (which is BSD licenced) don't have any problems and just use latest gcc.
>
>> I'm not saying moving to clang is a bad idea.
>
> I am saying this. Moving to worse compiler is a definitely bad idea.
>
> This is not a place of politics. As GPLv3 doesn't prevent it from being
> used in FreeBSD and is better - it should be used. It's simple.
>
> If clang would be better - it should be used.
>
>> Can anyone provide an example of viral propagation of the license if
>> we compile
>> the base system with a gpl v3 gcc?
>>
> there are none probably.
>
> Before actually testing it i believed we move to clang because it is
> better compiler AND and supported a move. Good lesson to test first and
> don't believe, even with FreeBSD.

The bad thing about GPLv3 is that if anyone commits any code under this
license into the tree vendors that use our code base for making their
own OSes will ditch FreeBSD as they can be sued by FSF. Juniper for
example. It would be wise to listen to their point of view on GPLv3.

As for DragonflyBSD they AFAIK are taking the path of fixing world to
build on any stock compiler as we currently do. And they have no such
user base to support.

FreeBSD is heading the right way: bringing BSD toolchain to the world
and fixing world compilation with gcc46 from ports would give anyone a
choice on which compiler to use keeping GPL out of tree.

--
Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
1234567 ... 11