Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:30:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: "Robison, Dave" <david.robison@fisglobal.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211929540.5130@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <4FE35745.9060601@fisglobal.com> References: <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <CAH3a3KWKNF5Bt-8=KgtbMh=rV6GfUO7OaeE6-SutxkcRe8cG3Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206191953280.8234@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20120621015237.GB58187@neutralgood.org> <AC6A916E-066B-4399-89E1-90C2394327E7@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <4FE35208.40708@queernet.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211907470.4170@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <4FE35745.9060601@fisglobal.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Because there's no reason to do that. It's an asinine suggestion. > > Clang is here to stay. Most of us are happy about that decision. GCC Because most that are not already stopped and ignored thing. and use GCC. Politics won.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211929540.5130>