Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:17:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206161815550.41364@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <4FCF9C07.2000607@FreeBSD.org> References: <4FCF9333.70201@speakeasy.org> <4FCF9C07.2000607@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1206161815550.41364>