11 ms·

> They stopped updating GCC precisely when they decided, and announced, they were moving to llvm/clang. Not true. They switched to clang with OS X 10.7. That

by deng 12y ago

> They stopped updating GCC precisely when they decided, and announced, they were moving to llvm/clang. Not true. They switched to clang with OS X 10.7. That was 2011. At that time, their gcc fork, based on 4.2 and carefully avoiding any GPLv3 code, was already ancient and loaded with problems. Past that, you literally ignored the main point: why would they need a "cover story" in the first place?

DannyBee 12y ago
Your timeline is way off. llvm-gcc was introduced with Xcode 3.1, and clang/llvm in xcode 3.2. It targeted 10.5. This was well prior to 2011 , and seeded well before it was released. Again, you don't have to believe me, Chris's resume shows this: http://nondot.org/sabre/Resume.html#Apple http://nondot.org/sabre/Resume.html#Apple "In this time period, my group expanded use of LLVM within Apple, supported new clients, built new features, and extended LLVM in many ways. We shipped llvm-gcc 4.2 in the Xcode 3.1 and major improvements for it in the Xcode 3.1.1 release." That time period was in 2006-2008. Apple made a decision that it was going to move if it could meet certain performance goals in the 2006/2007 time frame. GPLv3 was not released until June of 2007. In any case, this argument is pointless, you can just ask Chris why they moved.