From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jan 21 13:46:31 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07916106564A
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:46:31 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com)
Received: from smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net
	[207.172.157.102])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D058FC1A
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:46:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.36])
	by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2012 08:46:29 -0500
Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.11])
	by mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 4.3.4-GA) with ESMTP id BNT31681;
	Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:46:29 -0500
Received-SPF: None identity=pra; client-ip=209.6.86.84;
	receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net;
	envelope-from="roberthuff@rcn.com";
	x-sender="roberthuff@rcn.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.6.86.84;
	receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net;
	envelope-from="roberthuff@rcn.com";
	x-sender="roberthuff@rcn.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None identity=helo; client-ip=209.6.86.84;
	receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net;
	envelope-from="roberthuff@rcn.com";
	x-sender="postmaster@jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org";
	x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received: from 209-6-86-84.c3-0.smr-ubr2.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO
	jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org) ([209.6.86.84])
	by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2012 08:46:29 -0500
From: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <20250.49587.232885.927023@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:46:27 -0500
To: Da Rock <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <4F1AAB66.5070100@herveybayaustralia.com.au>
References: <4F1AAB66.5070100@herveybayaustralia.com.au>
X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5  (beta28) "fuki" XEmacs Lucid
X-Junkmail-Whitelist: YES (by domain whitelist at mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net)
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Clang - what is the story?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:46:31 -0000


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