Another test of zapcc

David CARLIER

unread,

Nov 27, 2016, 3:29:18 PM11/27/16

to

http://devnexen.blogspot.com/2016/11/better-stronger-faster-there-is-zapcc.html

Alf P. Steinbach

unread,

Nov 27, 2016, 4:39:16 PM11/27/16

to

On 27.11.2016 21:29, David CARLIER wrote:
> http://devnexen.blogspot.com/2016/11/better-stronger-faster-there-is-zapcc.html

That looks like spam.

Even your last name looks like spam.

How about a few words about what zapcc is and what the test showed, and
why you think it's relevant to discuss here or relevant for us to know
about?

Cheers,

- Alf (and no, I didn't follow the link)

Öö Tiib

unread,

Nov 27, 2016, 6:43:49 PM11/27/16

to

On Sunday, 27 November 2016 23:39:16 UTC+2, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> On 27.11.2016 21:29, David CARLIER wrote:

> > http://...

>
> That looks like spam.
>
> Even your last name looks like spam.

Yes, the author clearly just wanted that we click the link to his blog
about testing zapcc.

>
> How about a few words about what zapcc is and what the test showed, and
> why you think it's relevant to discuss here or relevant for us to know
> about?

zapcc is AFAIK attempted clone of clang to commercial c++ compiler made
by a company of Israel that tries to achieve improved speed of
compilation. Whatever they have done is closed source and in beta test.

bitrex

unread,

Nov 27, 2016, 7:32:19 PM11/27/16

to

So people are willing to pay money for a C++ compiler where its main
selling point is compilation speed, and not security or guaranteed
behavior, etc?

Weird.

bitrex

unread,

Nov 27, 2016, 7:33:33 PM11/27/16

to

Is this something targeted at the HFT software industry, maybe?

Vir Campestris

unread,

Nov 28, 2016, 4:44:58 PM11/28/16

to

On 27/11/2016 23:43, Öö Tiib wrote:
> zapcc is AFAIK attempted clone of clang to commercial c++ compiler made
> by a company of Israel that tries to achieve improved speed of
> compilation. Whatever they have done is closed source and in beta test.

Is that even legal? Surely Clang's licence requires you to publish
derived works? (asd no, I haven't checked)

Andy

Richard

unread,

Nov 28, 2016, 5:24:11 PM11/28/16

to

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code
<OvidnYVje5HPOKHF...@brightview.co.uk> thusly:

Clang uses a BSD license which doesn't forbid commercial derivatives.

<http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#license>
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

woodb...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 28, 2016, 6:30:28 PM11/28/16

to

This is from Pirkei Avot (Sayings of the fathers/sages):

“There are four character types among people. One who says, ‘What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours’ is of average character, and some say, this is the character of Sodom.
[One who says] ‘What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine’ is unlearned
[One who says] ‘What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is yours’ is pious.
[One who says] ‘What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine’ is wicked.”

As Richard points out Clang doesn't try to strangle others
who would dare to think that they should be free to profit
from their work. The Clang license is generous.

Does anyone recall how I've said for years that what they
are doing (making the compiler a server) is a good idea?
Sorry to honk my own horn again, but I suggested this with
GCC before Clang existed.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
http://webEbenezer.net

David Brown

unread,

Nov 29, 2016, 3:59:08 AM11/29/16

to

You can blow your nose as much as you want, but it was hardly /your/
idea. The idea of making a compilation server has existed for decades -
certainly for the twenty+ years that I have been programming C. And it
is precisely to avoid people taking all the hard work of gcc and putting
it into a closed-source commercial product that gcc have long insisted
on a traditional compilation model, rather than considering a
server-style system. The clang/llvm folks differ in their philosophy
for licenses, and see the use of clang as a server (especially in IDEs)
as a major use case. gcc /is/ moving towards better support for
server-style compilation (in particular, for use with gdb), just as they
introduced a plugin architecture a few years ago despite fears that it
would be easier to mix gcc with closed-source software.

Öö Tiib

unread,

Nov 29, 2016, 9:19:47 AM11/29/16

to

It is legal to make closed source derivative work from clang code base.
My opinion is that if there are such things then clang has more usages
and so becomes better and it is good.