Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #94874

Re: GCC vs. LLVM

Path csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.misc
Subject Re: GCC vs. LLVM
Date 1 Nov 2026 01:45:24 GMT
Lines 22
Message-ID <nknjtkFftq4U4@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References <18e37e973e22a7a6$1$3179723$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> <8733tmaqnk.fsf@atr2.ath.cx> <11c5l8a$1f300$1@dont-email.me> <11c61ov$1iflt$2@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding 8bit
X-Trace individual.net bQ8sSS2gsK7TUUVzRDPJ/genp6Z66tXoilux6lR+UP3kxX4OJ4
Cancel-Lock sha1:wj/PzYmdDDW0P6fxk13bKb33fes= sha256:TAwsXnMdcb27e2vnVqk6tZMrTCVOaUnynzfzVLlSBGc=
User-Agent Pan/0.165 (Kostiantynivka)
Xref csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:94874

Show key headers only | View raw

On Sun, 01 Nov 2026 00:39:59 +0000, Nuno Silva wrote:

> On 2026-10-31, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 10:30:39 -0400, jayjwa wrote:
>>
>>> Clang whines alot on perfectly good code, but some of the graphics
>>> stuff requires it. I think Mesa and also AMD ROCm.
>>
>> Why Clang and not GCC?
>>
>> Because those companies are afraid of the GPL, aren’t they?
> 
> Didn't a recent post to this group suggest Apple invested in clang+llvm
> because of absurd "fear" of GPLv3?

I wouldn't call it fear. Apple initially attempted to use ggc as the front 
end to llvm. There was little interest in the gcc maintainers to support 
Objective C so Apple would have had to modify gcc, taking a big bite out 
of the poisoned apple.

Which is more free, one of the many permissive licenses or GPLv3?

Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Substantive Comments Please: GCC vs. LLMV Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-31 03:11 +0000
  Re: Substantive Comments Please: GCC vs. LLMV Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2026-10-31 17:28 +1000
    Re: Substantive Comments Please: GCC vs. LLMV Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-31 13:25 +0000
  Re: Substantive Comments Please: GCC vs. LLMV jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-10-31 10:30 -0400
    Re: Substantive Comments Please: GCC vs. LLMV Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-31 15:12 +0000
    Re: Substantive Comments Please: GCC vs. LLMV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-31 19:21 +0000
    Re: GCC vs. LLVM Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-31 21:06 +0000
      Re: GCC vs. LLVM Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-01 00:39 +0000
        Re: GCC vs. LLVM rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-01 01:45 +0000
          Re: GCC vs. LLVM Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-01 09:05 +0000
      Re: GCC vs. LLVM c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 03:51 -0500
        Re: GCC vs. LLVM Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 02:16 -0800
  Re: Substantive Comments Please: GCC vs. LLMV Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-11-01 10:07 -0500
    Re: Substantive Comments Please: GCC vs. LLMV Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-01 18:31 +0000

csiph-web