Apple engineers reported to my bug report #15977897 in this fashion: llvm-gcc has been unsupported for a couple of years now. Please use clang.
So basically Apple says it easily stop supporting something a 90% of software depends on.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-09 20:04
Clang is buggy and slow. It somehow produces underperfomance and bloated executables. Using Clangs is like lossing 90% of your raw C's speed. The compiler itself is written in C++, requiring a lot of knowledge to hack. While everyone knowing assembly can learn C in a month, getting through C++ may require years, because most of C++ code is obfuscated using so called object oriention and design patterns.
Using Clangs is like running at 90% of raw C's speed.
self fix
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-09 20:16
http://prod.lists.apple.com/archives/xcode-users/2012/Jun/msg00115.html The thing is, I tried using the small code accessing the constant and it works. Then I included the big source code in that small code that worked, and it stopped working! So it doesn't seem related to compiler options, because the same code once works and in other case it doesn't. I also tried invoking CLANG manually with the same results (and I ensured there is no dynamic-no-pic etc., in fact I tried maybe every possible combination...). Seems to me like a bug in CLANG.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-10 3:30
So Apple software is built using Clang. Why are you offended that they don't support the GCC programs that the rest of the world use? Is it really that difficult to install Clang onto your system?
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-10 3:31
>>5 It's literally impossible to run unsigned binaries on Apple devices, unless you jailbreak and void your warranty.
Although Apple appears to blacklist pirated certificates from time to time.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-10 7:02
>>2 I try to like clang, but every time I look at anything related to LLVM I get the feeling that I'm falling into a sinkhole of C++ compiler uber-weeniedom:
I mean really, these guys had to write another mini compiler with its own shitty domain specific language (that looks like sepples, of course!) because none of the existing formats for representing tree-ish data were just not good enough. It really makes you wonder how bad the gcc internals really are if the people who know it well say this is supposed to be better.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-10 9:46
>>6 What does that have to do with using clang instead of gcc?
>>26 Retake your anti-feminism class you stupid feminist.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-10 19:26
Since the 80ie America rolls the straight rails to hell - Lisp was replaced with Java - IBM got replaced by Apple - Inspirational 80ies rock music was replaced by prison rap culture - Brilliant scientist and engineers were replaced with illegal immigrants trash, as if America doesn't already have enough niggers (http://www.theantiliberalzone.com/2014/07/07/more-lies-from-obama-the-pissant/) - Reagan, who defeated communism, was replaced by Obama, who opened America for communism. - WASP's work hard to succeed attitude got replaced with commie-nigger gimme more welfare instant gratification shit
>>36 Yes, come and slap a face that would put Arnold Schwarzenegger to shame. I dare you.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-10 20:16
Women love a man who treats them like a boss or like a chieftain, not a wussy who is so busy being sensitive and considerate he can't bend her over, slap her ass and give her a good fuck.
Name:
>>382014-07-10 20:19
I'm a virgin and I wish I was a she. My lil dick might as well make me one.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-10 20:28
>>37 Your face looks like Schwarzenegger's? Feminists don't even look like women, they're freaks of nature that should be sent to asylums for the rest of their days.
>>61 That's not what I said. The engineering company dictates the design not the other way around, retard. Now if da Vinci was using stencils produced by that same supplier then your ``implying'' bullshit might make sense, but as is it just makes you look like an idiot.