>http://blog.llvm.org/2016/06/thinlto-scalable-and-incremental-lto.html
Where were you when gcc was kill?
>>55241424
I don't know what this is and /g/ doesn't know either
>>55241424
can it compile the Linux kernel yet
>>55241424
Neat. I don't think GCC will ever be kill however.
>>55241424
Have fun compiling anything without it.
nice
Can it compile Windows 10?
Use clang
>>55241550
No. You'd need to use MS's Compiler for that.
>>55241453
Basically, there's an optimization technique called link-time optimization where the compiler performs optimizations on the whole program rather than just on a single file at a time. This makes programs run faster (by about 10% on average), but at a huge cost in compile time and memory usage, to the point that it is essentially unusable for larger projects.
Now LLVM has ThinLTO, which provides (almost) the same benefits as traditional LTO with only a small increase in compile time and memory usage.
>>55241589
I know this thread seems retarded but as someone who understands compilers and hadn't heard of this, thanks for the link. It's a really interesting technique.
At the same time, I fail to see why this is fundamentally tied to llvm's modular nature. This is still an optimization performed on LLVM's IR, with nothing unique from gcc.
>>55241696
It's just part of big corporations' agendas pushing for less-free open-source software.
>>55243025
The license used by LLVM is categorized as wholly free by the FSF, so I'm not sure what you're on about. It's even GPL compatible, so gcc can literally copy-paste llvm code into their compiler and release it under their own license if they feel freedom requires pushing their retarded agenda.
>>55241424
Only one trillion times to shill left!
>>55243442
>The license used by LLVM is categorized as wholly free by the FSF
We know that, duh.
>>55243459
>two years
someone needs to update that image
>>55243459
Only 'almost two years'? That's insulting, good sir. I demand you update your image.
>>55241589
but you only compile it once with the opt, slow or not
>>55241424
Even though I use LLVM primarily, their c++ implementation isn't even fully supported on linux. Likewise the c compiler just uses the gcc libraries.
>>55243535
Since libc++ has a different C++ ABI than libstdc++, trying to use it on linux is a dumb idea anyway. You load a library that uses libstdc++ to allocate a C++ string, get it passed back to your libc++-linked string code and boom goes your app.
That's why, even though clang already works with mingw, they're working on replicating the MSVC ABI on Windows too. When in Rome and all...
>>55241424
I use it, best compiler ever. Use GCC
>>55243459
Holy shit. Thanks Anon. We need more people like you keep track of stuff like this.
>>55243490
I think it should be about 6 years now. Or maybe I am being terribly wrong.
>>55244393
Why would anyone spend so much time and energy trying to convince a single imageboard to stop using the most widely used compiler? It's not like we decide this shit.
>>55244664
...you do know we are legion right?
>>55244393
You are terribly wrong. It started when FreeBSD deprecated GCC, so 2012.
>>55244853
~5 years then
>>55241424
gcc 6 supports a form of incremental lto, and it's going to be improved further in gcc 7.
Etc. I'm not sure why you'd want gcc dead anyway.
>2012 was 5 years ago
>>55244913
Stop.
>>55244853
>FreeBSD having any bearing over what happens with GNU/Linux
holy frozen shit on a stick
>>55241424
When Clang came out I was about 14, so fucking chicks and doing homework.
>>55244664
>>55243459
This is not the greatest OP in the world, no. This is only a tribute.
>>55241424
>c11 still not fully supported
>>55245278
>not using ANSI C
