If OP is above 30 - it's probably due to the frustration of trying to modularize GCC that led to the creation of LLVM in the first place. If OP is below 30, it's probably because he grew up in a world where most compiler research and design is done on LLVM and GCC is for grandpa.
I have intense respect for the history of gcc, but everything about using it screams that it's stuck in the past.
LLVM has a lot of problems, but it feels significantly more modern.
I do wish we had a "new LLVM" doing to LLVM what it did to gcc. Just because it's better doesn't mean it's perfect.
Basically, you can respect history while also being honest about the current state of things. But also, doing so requires you to care primarily about things like ease of use, rather than things like licenses. For some people, they care about licenses first, usability second.
Their IR is a mess. So a "new LLVM" ought to start by nailing down the IR.
And as a bonus, seems to me a nailed down IR actually is that portable assembly language the C people keep telling us is what they wanted. Most of them don't actually want that and won't thank you - but if even 1% of the "I need a portable assembler" crowd actually did want a portable assembler they're a large volume of customers from day one.
Having tried writing plugins for both, I very much prefer GCC's codebase. You have to adapt to its quirks, but at least it won't pull the rug from under your feet gratuitously. There's a reason every major project ends up embedding a years-old copy of LLVM rather than just using the system version.
If you're ignoring the API and writing IR directly there are advantages to LLVM though.
I for sure don't want to suggest that anyone who loves gcc shouldn't be working on what they love. More compilers are a good thing, generally. Just trying to say why I have a preference.
It is unfortunate. GCC has enabled the compilation of countless lines of source code for nearly 40 years and has served millions of users. Regardless of whether its design is considered good or bad today, GCC has played an essential role and has enabled the emergence of many projects and new compilers. GCC deserves deep respect.
Good question. Author is incredibly hostile to one of the most important pieces of software ever developed because of the way they approached the problem nearly 40 years ago. Then he criticizes Go for trying to redesign the system instead of just using target triples...
The author writes: "really stupid way in which GCC does cross compiling [...] Nobody with a brain does this [...]", and then admits in the footnote, "I’m not sure why GCC does this".
Seems to have a decent amount of knowledge in this domain in education and professional work. Author is from MIT so maybe professors had a lot of influence here.
also, gcc is relatively old and comes with a lot of baggage. LLVM is sort of the defacto standard now with improvements in performance
Distributions, and therefore virtually all the software used by a distribution user, still generally use gcc. LLVM is only the de facto standard when doing something new, and for JIT.
as someone who uses both Clang and GCC to cover eachothers weaknesses, as far as I can tell both LLVM and GCC are hopelessly beastly codebases in terms of raw size and their complexity. I think that's just what happens when people desire to build an "everything compiler".
From what I gathered, LLVM has a lot of C++ specific design choices in its IR language anyway. I think I'd count that as baggage.
I personally don't think one is better than the other. Sometimes clang produces faster code, sometimes gcc. I haven't really dealt with compiler bugs from either. They compile my projects at the same speed. Clang is better at certain analyses, gcc better at certain others.
Clang used to compile much faster than GCC. I was excited. Now there is barely any difference, so I keep using GCC and occasionally some Clang-based tools such as iwyu, ClangBuildAnalyzer or sanitizer options (rare, Valgrind is easier and more powerful though sanitizers also have unique features).
If OP is above 30 - it's probably due to the frustration of trying to modularize GCC that led to the creation of LLVM in the first place. If OP is below 30, it's probably because he grew up in a world where most compiler research and design is done on LLVM and GCC is for grandpa.
I have intense respect for the history of gcc, but everything about using it screams that it's stuck in the past.
LLVM has a lot of problems, but it feels significantly more modern.
I do wish we had a "new LLVM" doing to LLVM what it did to gcc. Just because it's better doesn't mean it's perfect.
Basically, you can respect history while also being honest about the current state of things. But also, doing so requires you to care primarily about things like ease of use, rather than things like licenses. For some people, they care about licenses first, usability second.
Their IR is a mess. So a "new LLVM" ought to start by nailing down the IR.
And as a bonus, seems to me a nailed down IR actually is that portable assembly language the C people keep telling us is what they wanted. Most of them don't actually want that and won't thank you - but if even 1% of the "I need a portable assembler" crowd actually did want a portable assembler they're a large volume of customers from day one.
Having tried writing plugins for both, I very much prefer GCC's codebase. You have to adapt to its quirks, but at least it won't pull the rug from under your feet gratuitously. There's a reason every major project ends up embedding a years-old copy of LLVM rather than just using the system version.
If you're ignoring the API and writing IR directly there are advantages to LLVM though.
Honestly, I love that both exist with their respective world views.
I for sure don't want to suggest that anyone who loves gcc shouldn't be working on what they love. More compilers are a good thing, generally. Just trying to say why I have a preference.
It is unfortunate. GCC has enabled the compilation of countless lines of source code for nearly 40 years and has served millions of users. Regardless of whether its design is considered good or bad today, GCC has played an essential role and has enabled the emergence of many projects and new compilers. GCC deserves deep respect.
Good question. Author is incredibly hostile to one of the most important pieces of software ever developed because of the way they approached the problem nearly 40 years ago. Then he criticizes Go for trying to redesign the system instead of just using target triples...
The author writes: "really stupid way in which GCC does cross compiling [...] Nobody with a brain does this [...]", and then admits in the footnote, "I’m not sure why GCC does this".
Immature to the point of alienating.
Seems to have a decent amount of knowledge in this domain in education and professional work. Author is from MIT so maybe professors had a lot of influence here.
also, gcc is relatively old and comes with a lot of baggage. LLVM is sort of the defacto standard now with improvements in performance
> LLVM is sort of the defacto standard now...
Distributions, and therefore virtually all the software used by a distribution user, still generally use gcc. LLVM is only the de facto standard when doing something new, and for JIT.
as someone who uses both Clang and GCC to cover eachothers weaknesses, as far as I can tell both LLVM and GCC are hopelessly beastly codebases in terms of raw size and their complexity. I think that's just what happens when people desire to build an "everything compiler".
From what I gathered, LLVM has a lot of C++ specific design choices in its IR language anyway. I think I'd count that as baggage.
I personally don't think one is better than the other. Sometimes clang produces faster code, sometimes gcc. I haven't really dealt with compiler bugs from either. They compile my projects at the same speed. Clang is better at certain analyses, gcc better at certain others.
Clang used to compile much faster than GCC. I was excited. Now there is barely any difference, so I keep using GCC and occasionally some Clang-based tools such as iwyu, ClangBuildAnalyzer or sanitizer options (rare, Valgrind is easier and more powerful though sanitizers also have unique features).
It's the new anti-woke mind virus going around attacking anything "communist" such as copyleft, Stallman, GCC, GNU, etc.