Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #94874
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.misc |
| Subject | Re: GCC vs. LLVM |
| Date | 2026-11-01 01:45 +0000 |
| 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> |
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
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
csiph-web