| |||||||||||||
Distributions looking at LLVMDistributions looking at LLVMPosted Mar 23, 2012 21:37 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Distributions looking at LLVM by scientes Parent article: Distributions looking at LLVM
Well, kinda. Apple does not lie, the problem with Apple's “facts” is tiny GPLv3-related wrinkle: they consider GPLv3 so poisonous they don't ever touch GCC 4.3+. And of course when they compare Apple's LLVM they compare it with Apple's GCC. This means all these comparisons are with five-year old version of GCC! Of course applefans don't know (or don't care) about that fact - that's where FUD comes from. It is conceivable that eventually Clang will win comparison with GCC even in apples-to-apples style - but this battle will not be easy or fast.
(Log in to post comments)
Distributions looking at LLVM Posted Mar 23, 2012 22:06 UTC (Fri) by scientes (guest, #83068) [Link]
> this battle will not be easy or fast.
especially when they are probably running on hardware that wasn't manufactured 5 years ago, and in that case LLVM probably compiles for CPU features and architecture optimizations that the five-year-old GCC 4.2 couldn't possibly know about.
Distributions looking at LLVM Posted Mar 26, 2012 11:10 UTC (Mon) by jwakely (subscriber, #60262) [Link]
Apple's GCC isn't 5 years old, it is forked from code that is 5 years old, but they've surely made changes in that time, and could have added support for newer processors.
|
|||||||||||||