From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 16 16:17:23 2012 Return-Path: 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 04A16106566B; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:17:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E06D8FC15; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:17:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5GGHJna041421; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:17:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q5GGHJeA041418; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:17:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:17:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Matthew Seaman In-Reply-To: <4FCF9C07.2000607@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: References: <4FCF9333.70201@speakeasy.org> <4FCF9C07.2000607@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:17:20 +0200 (CEST) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:17:23 -0000 > > Clearly an update was necessary. Unfortunately, later versions of gcc > have switched to GPLv3, which is a viral license and unacceptable to the > FreeBSD project. wasn't aware of that. > > Therefore clang was chosen from amongst a number of alternatives as the > best replacement. That makes it sound as if clang is a second class > option compared to recent gcc, but this is certainly not the case: > results from clang are comparable to the latest gcc versions and the > design of clang is such that further optimizations and improvements can > be readily incorporated. and - at least for now - clang itself is very slow. But produces not worse (or better) code than gcc.