Run time optimizations can be (are?) a very bad idea in a kernel, where very often the exact predictability of execution paths makes the difference between a working kernel and a misbehaving one.
Well, with Clang/LLVM you can compile the kernel straight to the target architecture with run time optimization turned off, as well as building what else you want, for instance your applications, with run time optimization turned on. Easy as customizing your Makefiles.
It's more than that. Apple also wants to retain the right to sue anyone who uses LLVM/Clang for patent infringement if they deem them a competitive threat.
OK, please explain this. It will be fun.
What's wrong with GCC?
Roberto (ducking under the table)
Here are some facts. GCC 4.6.3 Loses to Clang 3.0 50% of the time. GCC 4.6.3 Loses to Clang 3.0 ~18% of the time. Most of the benchmarks use OpenMP which clang doesn't support. GCC 4.6.1 Loses to a prerelease Clang 3.0 ~50% of the time.
Where are you getting this 90% from? Cause it's not from reality.
I also get quite variable results. I have some code that runs significantly faster with gcc 4.6.x or 4.7.x. Other code is faster with clang 3.0. It really depends. In my experience gcc is more faster than not, but the gat is closing quickly. Roberto
Some quantum properties might be usable, but quantum computing sounds like snake oil of the worst class.
My personal opinion is that quantum computing is - currently - mainly a means to get fat grants.
Of course, there are other encryption schemes that seem to work just fine (e.g. Elliptic curve cryptography) with quantum computing, and there's not much evidence that algorithms other than RSA are broken.
Actually, all discrete-logarithm based schemes can be broken in polynomial time by quantum computing, hence also elliptic curve cryptography.The details have to be re-worked out for each such scheme, but that's true also of any classical attack. See for instance http://www.mathcs.richmond.edu/~jad/summerwork/ellipticcurvequantum.pdf
Skimming, kickbacks, outright bribery. Sadly it seems the only way people get anything done in this city is if they can take a slice off the top. The honest guys and small time thieves have little incentive to really push things. The deeply corrupt get an awful lot done. One percent off the top gets to be a larger amount the more they accomplish.
Still, I do not like that...
I'm not so sure about that. My home town has always had some issues with corruption, but it seems when we get some good quality corruption going we actually have growth.
Define "good quality corruption".
It is still better an honest incompetent than an outright criminal in charge. I'm not so sure about that. I'd rather have a competent judge who fixes traffic tickets for his friends than an incompetent one. Of course, worse is one who is both crooked and incompetent.
Well, there are smaller misbehaviours and bigger things. To fix traffic tickets for friends is of course a crime, but it would be difficult to consider it a major crime (even though it gives a very bad example, and can ruin the trust between citizen and institutions). But a prime minister with ties to the mafia, that is totally unacceptable.
Is there any chance that this will change in the near future? Another question is how long can Berlusconi stay in power?
He has a plan to be cloned from the nose once he dies.
lobbyists never give up!
In this case the lobbyist is the president and his gang of thugs. The voters still love him though, so he stays in power despite countless scandals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi#Legal_problems ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi#Controversies. Democracy doesn't work so well when people vote on looks and television presence rather than actual issues. Or when one person control vast amounts of the news media.
we vote for berlusconi because there are no alternatives, the commies had their chance a few years ago and their government blew up after less than 2 years because they couldn't agree on anything even if they were allied he might not be the best option ever, but it's the best we have right now
It is still better an honest incompetent than an outright criminal in charge.
However the law needs improvements: currently it targets the disseminators (journalists) while the real targets should be the ones who let the information out in the first place (judges and their staff).
Exactly. The journalist should not be held liable if he publishes information he gets from other sources. Those that leak the info are of course responsible. For instance: Bradley Manning is liable for leaking info he was supposed to keep secret, Julian Assange (Wikileaks founder) should NOT be held liable. It's simple. The italian law is de facto introducting censorship.
Hitler didn't have a laptop in school, and look how THAT turned out!
Godwin's law at work!