Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: rbowman Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: GCC vs. LLVM Date: 1 Nov 2026 01:45:24 GMT Lines: 22 Message-ID: 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 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?