Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 15:14:55 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, tomdean@speakeasy.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <201206062014.q56KEtVS034105@mail.r-bonomi.com> In-Reply-To: <4FCF9333.70201@speakeasy.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Wed Jun 6 12:33:25 2012
> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:28:19 -0700
> From: "Thomas D. Dean" <tomdean@speakeasy.org>
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Why Clang
>
> Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
>
> I would like to know the reasoning.
There were several reasons;
1) the proliferation of "non-standard" things that the GNU crowd calls
'features' in newer versions of the compiler -- some of which actually
break 'standards compliant' code.
2) The proliferation of situations under which newer versions of the GCC
compiler generate 'bad code' -- code that does *NOT* do what it is
supposed to do.
3) The GPL, version *3* -- which applies to all newer versions of the
GCC compiler -- is unacceptable to a large part of the FreeBSD community.
Items 1) and 2) were ongoing nuisances. Item 3) all by itself, was the deal
breaker.
clang was selected over alternatives -- including keeping the 'old' (GPL v2)
GCC, on the basis of:
a) better standards compliance.
b) *FAR* better error messages.
c) guality of generated code.
d) 'non-restrictive' licensing.
The GPL V3 has been responsible for a lot of people, besides FreeBSD, going
looking for alternatives to any GPL-licensed code. GNU is well on the way
to 'radicalizing' itself out of significance. They would rather be
ideologically pure than 'widely accepted'. It _is_ their right to do so,
but it makes life 'difficult' for those who have interests in building
profit-based products using their tools.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201206062014.q56KEtVS034105>