| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
better alternatives fast approachingbetter alternatives fast approachingPosted Nov 19, 2007 23:24 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: better alternatives fast approaching by elanthis Parent article: GCC unplugged
Well, yes, the desire for a BSD-licensed compiler above all else *is* the only sane reason for anyone to pick up the compiler they did. If they'd wanted an extensible high-quality free compiler, there are some other than GCC which they could have picked up instead which are *far* more capable than the ancient thing they chose to go with. (LLVM provides most of the pieces needed on its own, but ooh, the license is wrong, sheesh.)
(Log in to post comments)
better alternatives fast approaching Posted Nov 20, 2007 6:29 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] LLVM's licence is basically the BSD licence, so that was clearly not the issue. (Third party components like the GCC front-end are, of course, under different licences. Eventually the front-end will be Clang, so that's not an issue either.)
better alternatives fast approaching Posted Nov 20, 2007 10:08 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Er, oopsy, mental license collision between similarly-named projects with utterly different purposes (I was hunting a possible bug in LVM at the time I posted that... LVM, LLVM, what's the difference, other than the license, the purpose, the design, and in fact everything other than the name?)
|
|
||||||||||||