From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 20 06:12:02 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF65410656D1 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:12:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com (mail-wg0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549E38FC12 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:12:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgbds11 with SMTP id ds11so3319742wgb.1 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:12:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=JKMKE12a37ABTioQvVsxl+t/dgNEw3dSM2qLyn7XHz4=; b=mD/osD7ldCAjJyVSfkApGB4UvQzfIGqwdLk4zBUa87cJ3Y5T7M3EWT5kSuU4Ec07mF oWAvYUjw5ywxgmB0Jynv7yePzjWgPgOqkf+Hmk6I6i8hcbmgLtOAr4dIqLsED4fek1Mh DYLHTzooyAxFV7Q6G8Qm16/OthVMsao0AQabvJv983JelLibmtyvE3R6mo4XDjaiK+Ld v/TrA31M7JV4EXW/VF72azJOk219rkI9NG0W4J/0mCaqsgHPct5dC4HALk60Uo2y+sMc Nb0p8QaOxGHwb8pffoytIFEO4w6Atm2A5K0+zT3HSUqonaxFno07Vmr7fqMq6x+A5Ud0 a/oQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.101.103 with SMTP id ff7mr9156039wib.6.1340172721038; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:12:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.88.155 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:12:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <854D02B1-CA89-4F5E-8773-DB05F2868D74@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:12:00 -0500 Message-ID: From: Adam Vande More To: Wojciech Puchar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Michel Talon , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:12:02 -0000 On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Wojciech Puchar < wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc. Is that in >> dispute or something? Or is this just repetition in case we >> didn't hear you the first time? >> > > just yesterday i've heard lots of otherwise claim. > > > >> Try thinking of the transition as a step back to take many steps forward. >> > > What exactly step forward it means? > These are a few: http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html#gcc And the performance overall in clang is gaining more rapidly than gcc. At it's present rate, it won't be long until your are complaining for clang to be the default if that is your primary objection. Other factors have pushed this change into motion sooner than perhaps desirable for some. However, it is inevitable given the licensing barriers and the project's long term goals. Eliminating, or at least not being dependent on a GNU toolchain. GPL v3 brings with it a whole host problems such as: http://www.tech-faq.com/linux-licensing-in-conflict-with-secure-boot-support.html Those licensing issues may not be an issue for you, but they are for many of the targets FreeBSD wishes to serve so keeping the base system as unpolluted as possible is important. -- Adam Vande More