Helmut Eller :
> > If nobody bothers with even
> > considering the question, it would appear that it is not all that
> > important...
>
> Maybe nobody bothers because using clang is easier than to fight with
> FSF policies.
<>
It is never a good idea to exclude political and social ramifications
Chris Lattner skribis:
> On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> (Hint: read http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/ as an example of a
>> better-supported point of view.)
>
> Unrelated to this thread, it would be great for this web page to get updated.
> You may find it to be "
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
In the free software movement, we campaign for the freedom of the
users of computing.
Hi Vladimir,
o Comparing LLVM and GCC on Fortran benchmarks. LLVM has no fortran FE and just
quietly call system GCC. So comparison of LLVM and GCC on Fortran benchmarks
means comparison of system GCC and a given GCC.
a few people are working on LLVM based Fortran compilers. I'm not sure how
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:52:00PM -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> o IMHO, the data in articles lack credability may be because a wrong
> setup (by me or by phoronix). E.g. I tried to reproduce Scimark
> results for GCC4.8 and LLVM3.3 from his article "LLVM Clang 3.4
> Already Has Some Performanc
Sorry, I forgot that pdf file is not permitted. Therefore I am
resending my email without it.
On 1/23/2014, 5:56 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
(Hint: read http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/ as an example of a
better-supported point of view.
On 01/24/2014 12:12 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23 January 2014 22:56, Chris Lattner wrote:
Unrelated to this thread, it would be great for this web page to get updated. You may
find it to be "a better-supported point of view", but it is also comparing
against clang 3.2, which is from the
On 23 January 2014 22:56, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> Unrelated to this thread, it would be great for this web page to get updated.
> You may find it to be "a better-supported point of view", but it is also
> comparing against clang 3.2, which is from the end of 2012, and a lot has
> changed since
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> (Hint: read http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/ as an example of a
>> better-supported point of view.)
>
> Unrelated to this thread, it would be great for this web page to get update
On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> (Hint: read http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/ as an example of a
> better-supported point of view.)
Unrelated to this thread, it would be great for this web page to get updated.
You may find it to be "a better-supported point of view",
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> (Redirected to the proper lists, excluding emacs-devel.)
This is not the proper list. "gcc@ is a ... list for general
development discussions about GCC." (xf
http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html). Most of this pointless discussion has
nothing to d
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>> Maybe nobody bothers because using clang is easier than to fight with
>> FSF policies.
>
> Which is pretty close if not identical to my original point.
Your original point came across as a complaint that GCC does not
support plugins bec
On 23 January 2014 17:49, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> (Redirected to the proper lists, excluding emacs-devel.)
Why do you think the gcc list is the proper place?
> The clang people aren't just a technical challenge to GCC, they're a
> philosophical/political one to the FSF as well. They are explic
(Redirected to the proper lists, excluding emacs-devel.)
Helmut Eller :
> > If nobody bothers with even
> > considering the question, it would appear that it is not all that
> > important...
>
> Maybe nobody bothers because using clang is easier than to fight with
> FSF policies.
Which is pretty
14 matches
Mail list logo
