Upgrade to clang

>real HPC code

Such as? Everyone I know uses GCC as their main C compiler. Only project I know which used Intel's C compiler was Waterfox, but the dev switched to another compiler because he ran into bugs and compilation issues. GCC is the industry standard and has been since 2005 I think.

Can Clang compile to run on old shit like 95 and 2000?

do you pronounce Clang as Klang or see-lang?

Who in their right mind gives a shit about compile time?

The only time I touch Clang is when I compile C to JavaScript. Nice mheem.

>trade your freedom for convenience

Goyims will fall for this trick. Their masters want this to happen.

Klang

Is it compatible with Code::Blocks?

And also, how's the runtime performance, like others were saying?

I would definitely prefer to ditch GCC and their filthy GPL.

As long as there's no major performance hits, I'll see if I can set this up right away

>mfw have to use GCC for compiling Android

If you don't care about compile times for an MLOC+ sized codebase you're never going to be able to be productive.

phoronix.com/vr.php?view=23521

>THEY FELL FOR THE CLANG MEME

GCC MASTER RACE

dirty clang peasants

You can thank GNUcucks for constantly sneaking in their compiler-specific shit into the kernel because one of their ways of justifying calling it GNU/Linux is "It can only be compiled with the GNU compiler!"

>GCC is deprecated garbage

Nice arguments you have there. You clang shills have to deal with the fact that gcc is the best optimising compiler out there, and clang will always be far behind.

>I've never worked on any serious large projects: The Post

>gcc
>best optimising compiler
But that's wrong, you fucking retard. The Intel compiler is.

Who, you conspiratorial fag?

Intel only optimizes better when fp math functions are involved. Furthermore it works best only on Intel CPUs. Go read more about the optimising compilers before you start spreading shit like this.

>tfw (((real))) HPC code is built with (((intel compilers)))

What are you talking about? clang is free software!

>Intel only optimizes better when fp math functions are involved.
... so only when it matters?

>Furthermore it works best only on Intel CPUs.
... so only on the CPUs that matter?

>fp
>... so only when it matters?
not him but please xor yourself.

>I should care about serious large projects when I'm working on my own project.

When working on serious large projects you are told what program witch compiler and ever how to write your code, this is non applicable.

>wait 2 days to build your entire project
>run
>not as fast as you expected
>remember you forgot some optimizing compiler switches
>rebuild
>2 more days
>runs fast but has a couple bugs
>attempt to fix them
>takes ages to test because GCC is so damn slow
>bugs finally fixed
>rerebuild
>2 more days
>it finally works
>deploy
>find out days later GCC generated faulty code due to extreme optimization
>can't do anything about it because GNU developers are fags and GCC is pure undocumented spaghetti code

GCC, not even once!

gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

"free software" as in it doesn't cost money.

But not free software as in the four freedoms defined by FSF or GNU.

The word you're looking for is "open source". In any case, there are many Apple/Microsoft products that are open source, but not freedom free.

>conspiracy
Go away shill.

so if you use clang, it will take 1.5 day instead retardo.

>runs fast but has a couple bugs
>attempt to fix them
>takes ages to test because GCC is so damn slow
>bugs finally fixed
>rerebuild
>2 more days

not using make, being idiot

>find out days later GCC generated faulty code due to extreme optimization

99.9999999999999% of the time, it's because of some tricky or erroneous code, also extreme optimization is usually slower than simply -O2.

It's good to have competition but I wouldn't just trust charts like this without source.

Also, let's all do some testing.

>I'll redefine words to conform to my commie agenda 1984 style

Wow, you sure are a massive hipster. Literally kys.

>ITT: INCREASINGLY NERVOUS GNU/Shills

Reminder that GCC is already deprecated on the FreeBSD project and Clang is already the default.

Reminder that Clang can already build almost the entire Debian repository.

Stay rectally shattered, FSFcucks.

Compile time is pretty fucking important desu. It's one of the major things keeping people from being productive in C/C++.

If runtime performance is better, it will be used instead of GCC. If it isn't, people will continue using GCC. Compile time is a worthless metric.

> people can (and do) use it to make non-Free software

Are you saying that you can't compile commercial software with gcc ?

Did you even read RMS's post? Clang is 100% Free software. It gives you all four Freedoms. The reason RMS dislikes it is because it's not copyleft, which means people can (and do) use it to make non-Free derived works. But this doesn't make Clang itself non-Free, and there is nothing immoral about using Clang.

>Compile time is a worthless metric.

Only if your time is worthless.

I meant derived works, not software in general. You can compile non-Free software with GCC too.

>Compile time is a worthless metric.
Wanna know how I know you're not a professional developer?

Nasa recommends intel compiler over gcc

>so if you use clang, it will take 1.5 day instead retardo.
And if I use GCC, I'll only gain a couple seconds of execution time, you fucking moron.

>it's because of some tricky or erroneous code
Sure thing, ignore the fact that GCC is buggy as fuck, you nimrod.

By allowing non-free components, Clang is effectively restricting the four freedoms.

RMS summarizes what he believes the Clang license is.
>I would guess they describe their work as "open
source" and do not talk about freedom.

Clang license indeed do not have any clause about user freedom, This is not an oversight, but rather designed so corporations can take advantage of people's goodwill.

Clang is a honeypot designed by the corporate for the corporates. Not to defend the freedom of the users nor to promote any sort of freedom for the users.

>by not restricting freedom, it is effectively restricting freedom

lol wut

Communist doublethink at its finest!

We are talking about C not your shitty JAVA

>By allowing non-free components, Clang is effectively restricting the four freedoms.
Not it is not. The person who actually restricts the four Freedoms is the one who restricts the four Freedoms.

>they describe their work as "open source" and do not talk about freedom.
True. However, the vast majority of Open Source is also Free Software, and this true of Clang.

>Clang license indeed do not have any clause about user freedom
It explicitly grants permission to carry out all the four Freedoms. It is unambiguously Free Software.

>Clang is a honeypot designed by the corporate for the corporates. Not to defend the freedom of the users nor to promote any sort of freedom for the users.
This could well be true. It has no bearing on whether Clang is Free Software or not.

> the compiler is a honeypot
lol wut. Does it run secret hacker code that mines butcoins while my hello world program is running?

Does clang even allow linux to be compiled?

Its designed by the meme generation, like yourself. Those that don't care about freedom, and only care about short term convenience.

Wanna know how I know you're a moron?

Yeah user, I run linux beacause I care about my convenience and not my freedom. I don't even run clang, gcc compiles my shit, I have no problems with it. I like the gnu coreutils. I run fucking emacs.

Please, tell me more about myself, you are like a mirror unto the human visage.

I live in a cave in the mountain and have my internet delivered to me via the satellite on my lynx.

>allow

I would unironically live live this if I could, user

>MUH CONSPIRACY MEME
Fuck off you establishment worshiping nigger

>hurrrrr the only only honeypot I understand is buttcoins
The mushroom clouds that will take away the millennial generation (you) can't come sooner.

Please user, give my meme-atrophied millenial mind the definition of a honeypot, as I seem to be severely in the wrong.

I though honeypots were resources put out to bait out wanna-be hackers and paedophiles like yourself.

Also, if you're not bordering 40, you're part of the same cancer generation.

GCC is the establishment, you idiot.

honeypot = bait

clang is a honeypot created by the corporates to bait out the devs and then fuck over the users. In effect, fucking themselves over.

While you may develop handful of programs, you're using dozens of others. You use more then develop. So if you're not stupid, you should see where the real priority should be.

Ok, user, let's say you're right and this is the case. What's stopping the devs from recompiling on gcc when shit hits the fan? Clang-only extensions?

Yes, allow. Have you ever compiled any big project before? Do you know what -werrors are? Have you ever tried changing your toolchain? Fucking idiot

Once the tide rolls in, you can't say "I don't want the tide anymore".

See Microsoft vs Apple in 90s. See Intel vs AMD in early 2000s. See AMD vs Nvidia in 2010s.

The only way to keep them at bay is to not let them out in the first place.

Or in memester words, you have to take responsibility for you own action. There is no "i didn't mean it" button that would magically erase everything you did before.

GCC-only extensions are EEE cancer.

Why is GNU so afraid of competition?

There, I said it.

Dude my dad can beat your dad.

It's the Linux developers' responsibility to test their code compiles on many platforms, you braindead mouthbreather.

>MS compiler
>industry standard

Right
Anyway, clang isn't a platform, it's a toolchain. Also, it's not supported by the linux project, only GCC is supported, so they're under no obligation to make it compile with clang.

You clearly don't have a clue about how any of this works and just browse Cred Forums mindlessly repeating other posts while seriously thinking you know anything about technology. Good for you.

Clang is made by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Apple, Microsoft, Google, ARM, Sony, Intel and AMD actually.

No, most software is definitely compiled either on Visual Studio or C++ Builder.

You do have a point user, however, nothing is eternal. Applel is doing pretty well for itself, yes winders still dominates, boo hoo.

Again, what's stopping you from recompiling on gcc? It's not like the shitload of popularity is doing it any favours. Almost nobody cares enough to donate money or even pull requests to the gcc project, when accounting for it's wide use.

Also, what's stopping anyone from making a non-shit version of clang when it pulls an oracle? The software is open sores.

If they only wanna support GCC fine, they aren't under any obligation to do otherwise indeed, but don't come blaming Linux's lack of support for other compilers on the Clang developers. You're the one who don't have a clue what you're talking about and you should stop posting.

>Clang versus outdated GCC.
Bait harder.

I asked a question about wether it compiled with clang lol

Can you fork Clang and make it into GPL instead of NCSA? Forking clang means forking LLVM. Can you change the license for both?

Most likely not.

meme benchmarks by meme people.

>phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd11-clang-gcc&num=4
>phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd11-clang-gcc&num=3
>phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd11-clang-gcc&num=2

You surreptitiously used the word "allow", you fucking shill. Don't play innocent now. You can fuck right off.

No, you more than likely cannot change the license. Can you fork gcc and make it non GPL? Again, probably not.

Can you fork clang? Yes. Can you redistribute the forked code, freely? Yes.

Yeah, the UIUC license is GPL compatible. We should just wrap a GPL around it like the Linux developers do on stuff they import from BSD and fork it.

It's a permissive hipster license, you idiot. We can wrap a GPL around it and make it real free software. We'd be doing everyone a favour.

Yes, clang wont allow linux to compile if it throws a werror

call me back again when you have a big project to work on ;)

Yeah, right user, if it's GPL'd, big companies totally won't touch it and use it for their own profits while giving back either jack shit to the community or some garbage that would be usable to you if you were a big company in the first place.

>I never got a large project to a stable release stage
>My pc sucks ass

>write a poem
>$ clang poem.txt
>werror
>clang won't allow my poem to compile
I hope you're just pretending to be retarded.

>what are millions of lines of code?

After you've worked on something like a fighter jet controller or even something as simple as an MMORPG video game, then we can talk, ok?

Did you even pay attention to the plot?

Newer GCC performs even WORSE than older GCC.

Shill harder, you nigger.

>compile
>java
Your nescience is showing.

doesn't android use clang now?

>GCC 5.1.0
GCC is at version 6 now

So it's even worse now?