Who would win in a fight?

gcc.gnu.org/backends.html
/thread

A robot dragon would obviously beat that weird cow.

Somewhat unrelated, use both when developing software dammit. It makes your code less shit and reduces the amount of subtle undefined behavior that might fuck you over.

thats why you dont use c or c++ kiddo

Both are free. The problem is that LLVM is not copyleft.

GNO

this needs specific examples.
how exactly non-copyleft-but-free compiler will allow fucking users? nobody's embedding fucking compilers in yoba games.

GCC > 5 has gotten much better in this regard. Case by case basis, though. Also, I read that code compiled in GCC runs faster than it would've had it been done in LLVM.

Do you disagree with Stallman himself about this?
gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

This is not a reddit.

GNO is a pure kikery & marxists bullshit.

They can serve as a base for proprietary compilers.

Compare Apple's initial releases of Objective-C and of Swift. The first was based on GCC, the second on LLVM. Steve Jobs discovered that GCC's license required the Objective-C front-end to be free software, so it was released under the GPL. But Swift was initially proprietary because LLVM's license allowed it to be.

The embarrassing thing for LLVM is that it's always been behind GCC on several metrics.

the jew cries out in pain as he strikes you
pls gas yourself

I used both but i can't tell which one is the better. LLVM is more popular with their meme license, but GCC support a bunch of platforms/architectures. Their getting shit with 5 and 6, but it still have some good feature.

So what? Nobody forces anyone to use them.

Not exactly forces as such, but the result is more people using proprietary software. It's obviously better if Apple pushes people to use a libre language implementation than if they push people to use a proprietary language implementation.

This is probably a retarded question but will all c/c++ code written and compiled under GCC work with clang? There's no difference in the actual languages right?

Unless the code uses/depends on GCC-specific compiler directives, then it should compile on clang I think

Undefined behaviours are subjec to compiler choices. If I remember well, Clang and gcc don't evaluate functions argument in the same order (func(++i, ++i) might not give the same result, for example).

Any code containing undefined behaviour has, well, no defined behaviour. So literally anything the compiler outputs is correct and working.

Only if the undefined behavior is reached. If your program has a --dereference-null-pointer option, and undefined behavior only occurs if that option is passed, the program is not allowed to do random bullshit as long as that option isn't passed.

As far as I know the C standard only requires programs to perform side effecting operations in order. Apart from that, undefined behaviour can cause anything to happen anywhere in your program depending on the whims of the compiler. You might be thinking of CompCert, which is actually guaranteed to execute as per the source code up to the point of undefinition.

Adding new processor support to LLVM was much easier than porting it to gcc.

Just face it, gcc devs have been losing men for some time and will soon die out once redhat employees ditch it.

this is BullShit.
language specification allows anything at all if the UB is present in program.

If by 'new processor' you mean a vanilla commercial processor that thinks like a 32-bit cpu, that might be close. But you won't find Clang on the more esoteric processors.

And even then, GCC was usable on RISC-V long before Clang, in spite of the supposed ease of support.

I propose that we write a proprietary compiler based on clang, that really really punish people that write code with undefined behavior.

pcc

a good compiler should do its best to crash program as soon as UB is triggered.
and produce compile time error when it can prove that UB can really happen.

Sounds like CompCert.

It won't be as fast if you do the first thing.

ITT : /tech never read C specification

It's an old one.

One is a viable alternative to C++, the other is a homosexual empire's attempt to shoehorn a shallow copy of Perl 6's Unicode semantics into iPhone SDK Language 2015-2018.

So what? Being proprietary allows for malicious features you can do nothing about.
For example, software compiled using Jewtel's ICC cripples itself if it detects non-Jewtel processors. And that's why you should avoid it.

So don't use them if you don't trust them. I've never used ICC before and so, it's never bothered me.

Easier said than done faggot.
If you work for lets say microsoft and the compiler does shit to your code.
What do you do ?

If you are in a company that give you only the binaries of a modified version of llvm and it fucks up your code, what do you do ?
They will tell you that you need to find a way around it.

Other example, you have the source code of the software but the compiler isn't ?
And you can't compile it with the vanilla/"open source" version of the compiler ?
Isn't that in your mind tilting something ?

A known example of compiler injecting unwanted functions:
infoq.com/news/2016/06/visual-cpp-telemetry
More knowledge
wiki.c2.com/?TheKenThompsonHack

It's sad to say but any software with a permissive license is a menace to itself and it's users on the long term.
Well except if the world was an enormous care bears episodes witch in that case the GPL license would have to exist.

If the complete tool chain of software isn't free/libre be sure to have shit in it.

If I'm working for a company and I'm instructed to use their tools, then I will use their tools. I will give my opinion that I prefer to use GCC or LLVM but in the end, I will use what I'm dictated to use. If these proprietary compilers fuck around with the company's software, that is not my responsibility. I'll probably notify my manager but they'll probably push me to continue with what was given to me. Other people's work is not my responsibility.

When I go home to do my own work on my own time, I will use my preferred software compiler which is GCC and LLVM.

Just saying that OpenBSD is switching to llvm....

Got a link to their justification? I just write code and use both GCC and Clang since they're pedantic about different things. If the code works in one but not the other, then I've fucked up somewhere.

I think the justificatio is this

$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.2.1 20070719
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

So yeah GPL3 way too evil for DeRaad to use and it would be fun to use compiler that supports something like C++11

If you end up writing something for specific compiler then you definetily have fucked up somewhere. If compiler does not compile standard X then they fucked up

The dragon would fucking kill the cow.

...

Would you happen to have a source for that?

No

Get the -current cvs for the OpenBSD sources padawan

...

Not writing compiler specific code, just checking that I've initialized and am using things correctly, and doing initial tests by throwing it through both compilers and checking the output is the same. I've run into a number of bugs caused by uninitialized memory that show up on one configuration but not another. Funnily enough they usually show up on Windows because it doesn't zero out newly allocated memory sections.

So they're just retarded and are using an almost decade old compiler. Good to know.

Doesn't change the fact that it's fucks your work flow and you'll loose time for bad reasons.

It doesn't change the fact that it will fuck the users even tho the software that you're developing is "open source" and the compiler will fuck shit up.

holly shit what a bunch of retards
even ubuntu 14.04 has a more recent version of GCC

gcc supports C++11 and C++14

OpenBSD uses gcc 3.3.6 on some architectures because newer gcc versions do not support them.
gcc 4.2.1 is the last version using GPLv2.
llvm does not support all the architectures OpenBSD does.

llvm is currently only used for arm64.

The only reason is GPLv3 being incompatible with the BSD's licenses, so they have to use something else.

The solutions is so simple, they just have to migrate their license to GPLv3 or any compatible GPLv3 license.

Confirmed

nope.jpg

Dude wrong place try their mailinglist instead

I wish

Please don't

That is the problem, FSF trying to take over the world with their GPL.
whatever

(pic related)

You aren't questioning yourself correctly user:
Do you want a license that protects the user ?
Or do you want a license that does no protect the user ?

Give me another license that has the same benefits/protection of the GPL and I won't mind using it :^)

CC-BY-SA+ with a provision for additional CC0 permissions 10 years after date of publication :^)

The CC doesn't work for code unfortunately.
I already looked for that some time ago.
It's just bullshit legal terms that doesn't cover correctly code.
And in some way it's normal CC was made for art/music/photos/etc... well you get the idea.>>714097

real attempt at an answer: copyleft-next

The poor boy would get eaten like a pack of wolves eats a deer.

Everyone complaining about how OpenBSD's version of GCC is so out of date does not understand OpenBSD's licensing policy.

openbsd.org/policy.html

The way to put the BSD and GPL licences is very easy.

The GPLv3 protects the users freedom by being restricting to the developer.

The ISC License protects the developer by being a very simple license to not cause headache.

OpenBSD can not include any GCC version after 4.2.1 due to the license changing from GPLv2 to GPLv3. I personally despise the GPLv3 because of how quickly it was rushed out due to Stallman having a fit. The GPLv2 is still a very great license and it's what I use on some projects.

ISC is still the best license though.

This is false; the FSF are not trying to take over the world with the GPL. If what you're saying is true, then the FSF would be forking all kinds of liberal software simply for the purpose of transforming them into GPL. There is no evidence of this happening. Where are the (FSF) GPL versions of:
* X11 server and client
* Wayland implementation
* Tex, Latex
* OpenSSH
* GPL LLVM
* Freetype fonts
* zlib
* libpng
* etc

The FSF do not fork liberal software simply for the purpose of transforming them into the GPL.

GPLv3 wasn't rushed out quickly. It had a worldwide public consultation of longer than 12 months and had four drafts during the consultation period.

I already disused with them a long time ago.
Unfortunately some of them haven't read the GPL (or BSD) or have misconception about the GPL.
Plus some old feud that predates myself heavily biases the discussion.

Developers are users too.

I don't get this.
You can program in X language but you can't understand basic legal language.
Like always BSD users haven't read or understood the GPL and the purpose of it.
Read the FAQ
gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html

The GPLv3 is very simple by itself when you read it. (but it's long and that's normal)
It use very specific words.
Very specific sentences.
And with both combination you get a text that covers correctly what is code and the four freedoms for the legal jurisdiction.

Copyright law isn't complicated, it's just twits and interpretations of words and sentences.
If you put less precision in it, you open your defense mechanism to possible abuse.

The interpretation of this link
>openbsd.org/policy.html
Of the gnu license is BS
Under GPL one is forced to share software only if someone ask a copy or source and if you publicly share your work you aren't forced to publish it immediately, you just have to do it when someone ask for source.
gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

It's under AGPL (witch is a separate license) that the software is forced to be shared no matter what.
The AGPL is not a license that is regularly used for two reasons:
First because it's really a pain to use it.
Second it only benefits some specific types of projects.

Further more
Is also BS
Anyone can sell the software and propose services around it
gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
It's just that you can't maximize the output of money.
That's why the monthly services model is a better solution than just paying plain software for 8000$ just once.

The GPLv3 wasn't rushed at all.
It took more than two years to do, one of the reasons for that is because it is now legally supported worldwide.

The reality about the use of the GPL when a company uses it.
Is that only a handful of users will demand source.
If the company complies with them only nerds and geeks will be off the botnet.

Permissive license are used by those who don't understand copyright or by companies who very well understand it and fuck users.
An example of that is android
Is it normal that a company who fucks users to legally us it ?
Yes
Is it normal that a company who fucks users to not let users have control of that specific "open source" software ?
No

That's the point of the GPL to let users who wants to be free, be free.

Like always all of this bullshit discussion about licenses is about misconceptions because no one reads the license or understand copyright.

I actually recommend developing software for the full price. If a given programming work is estimated 3 months and $12000 for the cost and effort in completing the work, then I would charge nothing less than $12000 and 3 months time. I would add normally some kind of margin for example 10% over the estimated cost. This is one way to make money by selling free software i.e. by selling the service of software development.

Nice.
It his your right to to so.
What you have explained is reasonable.

In the shit part of the world where I am one individual can't afford to pay so much for software unfortunately.
That's why I use another kind of business model.
I federated lot of people, they pay a small fee each months of 10$.
And in exchange I make software and maintenance.

Yeah we understand and the compiler is still out of date faggot

Incompatible with which licenses in particular? I'm pretty sure they just think its terms are unacceptable, not that they're legally not allowed to use it.

The structuring of finance is an important tool to selling anything at high cost. One way to do it is by forming a syndicate with numerous people and divide the cost that way: this is known as the patron model and it exists today with services like Kickstarter and Gofundme. Another way to do this is to provide ongoing programming consulting on a retainer agreement. Another way is to provide a payment plan on installments: the total cost is divided into numerous payments at a specific and fixed period of time.

It's not incompatible. They simply refuse to accept the GPLv3 distribution terms by their own will.

You'd be surprised. Try asking anyone what copyright is and what it covers; you'll get nothing but blank stares.
And while you're at it, tell them that writing 'no copy right intended' won't save their asses, and that singing Happy Birthday in public is 'piracy'. It will blow their minds.
If the masses actually understood copyright law and EULAs, they'd revolt against the jews at Jewlett-Packard/Jewdobe/Amajew/CrApple/Macroshaft/Jewgle/Jewtel/etc. in no time.

You overestimate the masses. They'll just post overlay memes on facebook for a while then get distracted with something shiny.

make up your mind

COMPILER FITE! COMPILER FITE! COMPILER FITE!
BGM: pc-freak.net/files/free-software-songs/jonobacon-freesoftwaresong2.ogg
>LLVM strikes back with MOTHERFUCKING DRAGON mascot!
BGM: gnu.org/music/markushaist-free-software-song.ogg

wow why did my shit thread get this shit

Rest in piece old friend, may your spirit rest easy.

They already had a chance for revolt back in 20013. Nothing happened.

That weird cow is not even a cow, it is a gnu.

bump