Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:46:27 -0500 From: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> To: Da Rock <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Clang - what is the story? Message-ID: <20250.49587.232885.927023@jerusalem.litteratus.org> In-Reply-To: <4F1AAB66.5070100@herveybayaustralia.com.au> References: <4F1AAB66.5070100@herveybayaustralia.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Da Rock writes: > The only reason I can see from searching is a need to get away > from gcc (which is tried and tested since the beginning of time) > which is now apparently GPLv3. I believe the GPLv3 issue is correct. Two other reasons I have heard mentioned in various discussions: 1) clang has better diagnostics, both for users and compiler developers/ 2) over the years, "extensions" have crept into GCC. Many were/are there for a reason; many can be ignored or turned off. However, doing so breaks various programs (either when building or running), "Why?" is above my pay grade. _As I understand it_, clang has few such extensions and those it does have are less necessary. Robert Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20250.49587.232885.927023>