There are some llvm based shader compilers out there. Some even open (AMD), some not (Nvidia).
The situation with architectures in 90s sounds about right: Those that were kept closed (and where a gcc backend was thus no option for the vendor - mostly embedded stuff) have to this day shitty compilers with unpredictable optimizers.
Re:Defending GCC considered futile
by GalacticDomin8r on Tuesday February 10, 2015 @12:22PM
(#9028500)
I'm not sure about the exact conclusion you seem to draw but it seems to be something like "GPL projects tend to have better outcomes than non-GPL". The whole point of the thread doesn't support that conclusion coming directly from the GCC brain trust. It's only natural that niche GCC users are going to hang around the longest.
I'd also like to note LLVM/clang didn't gain large non-apple marketshare until GCC adopted GPLv3 which has more to with it's stagnation than anything IMO. v2 is palatable to many business needs, v3 is not.
Mostly I was looking for a specific/practical current example where using LLVM allowed a company to release something closed-source, where they would have been forced to open it if they used GCC.
The rubber apparently meets the road with the NVidia shader compiler.
I would love to hear from anyone with more expertise in this realm who might be able to dispute this claim in any way... otherwise this seems to be a smoking gun in GCC's favor!