3 ms·
> In other news, GCC continues to fall apart at a brisk pace, with literally every distro shipping slightly different versions. Heh, this is actually true. Cla
by exelius 12y ago
> In other news, GCC continues to fall apart at a brisk pace, with literally every distro shipping slightly different versions.
Heh, this is actually true. Clang/llvm are rapidly replacing GCC, largely due to this issue (though performance plays a part as well).
- Crito 12y agoDo Linux distros that have their own patches for GCC not have their own patches for clang/LLVM? Why would this be the case?
- DannyBee 12y agoIt's not the case, they have patches for both :)
- plorkyeran 12y agoThey haven't had time to accumulate patches that were useful five years ago but now just make things pointlessly slightly different. Similarly, you can generally assume that if someone has clang then it will be a relatively recent version of clang, because of how fast clang moved from not being practically usable to being very good. In a few years I assume that all of the various annoyances around targeting GCC on Linux will also apply to clang.
- yellowapple 12y agoThere's also some complication from GCC being developed as part of GNU. You'd think this wouldn't be a problem in practice, but I remember (yet can't seem to find, unfortunately) a rather significant spat on the GCC mailing lists about the more hardcore GNUsiances refusing to implement a better AST (or at least one as good as clang's/LLVM's) solely because doing so would run the risk of the AST being used to reverse-engineer GCC beyond the terms of the GPL and a bunch of core GCC devs threatening to fork and ditch GNU because of it.
- krakensden 12y agoOnly if by 'distro' you mean 'Apple'.