I wonder if they could use tcc or similar and get a reasonable system. Hopefully someone familiar with BSD can expand on the quest for a suitably licensed compiler.
Yes clang used bootstrap in a similar time to its contemporary GCC version and compile code notably faster at the cost of emitting slightly less optimised code. Over the years LLVM became bloated. It's now by far the biggest and slowest to compile part of the FreeBSD base system, but there are only two useable open source C and C++ compilers and GCC isn't acceptable to the existing userbase because they changed their license to GPLv3. Also modern GCC isn't nearly as small as GCC 4.2 used to be.
Comments
I wonder if they could use tcc or similar and get a reasonable system. Hopefully someone familiar with BSD can expand on the quest for a suitably licensed compiler.
Hasn't LLVM solved their license requirements already (at the cost of removing some niche CPU targets)?
It’s still Apache 2.0 with LLVM exceptions. Which is not BSD-compatible.
What are the material differences between the BSD and Apache? Is it just the fact that it's not litterally BSD licensed?
The Apache 2.0 license includes a patent grant.
As I inderstood it, the point of phk's post was the LLVM shouldn't be considered part of FreeBSD (src) and is unreasonably large.
Yes clang used bootstrap in a similar time to its contemporary GCC version and compile code notably faster at the cost of emitting slightly less optimised code. Over the years LLVM became bloated. It's now by far the biggest and slowest to compile part of the FreeBSD base system, but there are only two useable open source C and C++ compilers and GCC isn't acceptable to the existing userbase because they changed their license to GPLv3. Also modern GCC isn't nearly as small as GCC 4.2 used to be.