Hacker News Reader

Without clang we would still have terrible compile error messages.

As clang implements more and more of GCC's extensions, though, I could see things reaching that tipping point.

And without a GPL compiler, we will be back to the PD and *ware days.

Sony, Apple, IBM, and plenty of other embedded vendors don't contribute 100% their improvements back to LLVM.

Apple does like 80% of the open source development of LLVM; I don't really see a valid angle to criticize their participation in LLVM at this time.

Except that they happen to have an actual portable variant of bitcode for watchOS, their clang implementation different enough from mainline clang to warrant its own column on cppreference compiler listing, and Objective-C and Swift related changes are on "just what you need to know" basis and the community should put the missing pieces.

Personally I don't care, as I am mostly a commercial software user nowadays.

Just making the point that LLVM victory over GCC, might not turn out as FOSS supporters expect.

Apple Clang gets its own column because it doesn't align with the official LLVM release schedule, which is also why it doesn't use the upstream version numbers.

That does not make sense. They could simply use the LLVM version, even if it was an old one.

I just implemented a GNU C extension in Clang today! `asm inline`

Reply on news.ycombinator.com