[sdiy] GCC vs Clang for Audio DSP
john at sleefamily.org
Fri May 6 00:26:20 CEST 2022
On Thu, 5 May 2022, at 17:16, Mike Bryant wrote:
> But not sure why you count clang as proprietary. It's open-source as
> much as gcc is, just development is paid for by the top companies and
> they have agreed to follow standards completely. I accept GNU have as
> well, but if you look at some other open-source developments, notably
> Firefox where they refuse to implement parts of standards that they
> were on the standards body working on, you can see that what I assume
> you count as 'non-proprietary' (but maybe another name is needed), is
> becoming a flawed model. Same with Blender, GIMP and Kicad of course
> where some changes seem to be made almost on a whim with no logical
> reason, often breaking legacy stuff.
Legacy? Typically that term refers to things that are bringing the good money in… but are also rarely touched, possibly even actively avoided because all the people that understood it have left the party, or because there are no testsuites
I find it very strange that you would use this term around free (as in liberty) software.
If you don’t like the decisions, you can fork the project or contribute in some other way. Whining when freeloading isn’t working out for you really isn’t a good look
When you say clang/llvm gives better results than GCC/binutils, are you referring to a 100% open-source (OSI tick) toolchain? Or an “open core” model with proprietary, non-free appendages/modifications vital to get the superior results claimed? It sounds like the latter?
More information about the Synth-diy