News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM. Parent comment

Re:Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM by marcos100 on Thursday August 12, 2021 @07:00AM (#28154692)
Wasn't LLVM reinventing the wheel at the time? They could just collaborate to GCC.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM by ch_123 on Thursday August 12, 2021 @08:57AM (#28155664)
They wanted to, but RMS wasn't interested at that time: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00...

I have also been told by more than one person that does professional compiler development that GCC's codebase is very difficult to work with. At least some commentary I've read suggests that this was a deliberate choice on the part of the GNU project.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM by kps on Thursday August 12, 2021 @09:51AM (#28156335)
> I have also been told by more than one person that does professional compiler development that GCC's codebase is very difficult to work with.

Add another. (Now-former professional compiler developer.)

> At least some commentary I've read suggests that this was a deliberate choice on the part of the GNU project.

This is the ‘RMS loophole’ in the GPL. In theory you can do what you want with the source; in practice you need help from the insiders.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM by marcos100 on Thursday August 12, 2021 @05:38PM (#28161854)
Sure, I'm not denying any problems with the GCC codebase and/or how RMS handles GNU software.

Just pointing that reinventing the wheel is not necessarily a bad thing or a waste of time.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM by _flux on Thursday August 12, 2021 @07:37AM (#28154975)
Maybe if GCC project wasn't opposing the ability to easily integrate third-party tools we wouldn't have LLVM to begin with.
[ Parent | on HN ]