Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:45:26 +1000 From: Da Rock <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clang - what is the story? Message-ID: <4F1B4006.2050002@herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: <CAGy-%2Bi8GMjwcJP6S7cZfk6J8XBe8AOOxsn98r=8a4aH0JhVb0A@mail.gmail.com> References: <4F1AAB66.5070100@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <CAGy-%2Bi8GMjwcJP6S7cZfk6J8XBe8AOOxsn98r=8a4aH0JhVb0A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/22/12 02:39, David Jackson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Da Rock< > freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au> wrote: > >> I've been seeing a lot of hoorays and pats on the back and a general >> feeling satisfaction in being able to use clang to compile FreeBSD and >> ports. 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. >> >> Can someone offer some clarity as to the importance of this? I'm guessing >> the that stepping away from GPL is generally a good thing, especially if >> there is something similar with similar license structure to BSD; I just >> can't understand the rush of it. >> >> Even under GPL anything built using gcc can be licensed as you like, so I >> doubt it could be that. >> >> I'm not skeptical, just curious- trying to get my head around some of the >> dev side of things :) >> ______________________________**_________________ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**questions<http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>; >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-** >> unsubscribe@freebsd.org<freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org>" >> > > The reasons for Clang are not just for the GPLv3 issue, but Clang is > architecturally superior in many ways over GCC, Clang was designed from the > ground up to learn from GCCs mistakes and to be a better C compiler. One of > the Clang's features is better debugging and a more modular architecture > that is easier to develop and extend. GCC has often been criticised for its > monolithic and inflexible structure that has often hindered implementing > new features and functionality. One of the advantages of Clang is that it > can be more easily plugged into IDEs for integrated debugging. > > You can read all about the many advantages and innovations of clang and how > it exceeds GCC here: > http://clang.llvm.org/ That was the first place I looked to see if anything stood out as the reason why, and I couldn't quite see apart from license. Apparently I had missed some aspects in the license.... Thanks for the answers guys. Legal issues can be real tricky sometimes can't they? I definitely would have missed that about the libraries- its obvious now :) That also explains the issues with other compilers (especially ones on other platforms). Cheers
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F1B4006.2050002>