From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 18 16:38:10 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E60106566C for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:38:10 +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 2F8448FC15 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:38:09 +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 q5IGbtYY003001; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:37:55 +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 q5IGbtkh002998; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:37:55 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:37:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Mark Felder In-Reply-To: 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; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:37:56 +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: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:38:11 -0000 >> I don't say clang is just bad, but i prefer real data over hype. > > This is the most memorable and impacting set of graphs that I remember. I > haven't followed the data much since. > > http://clang.llvm.org/performance-2008-10-31.html > > Now imagine having to rebuild projects constantly during your dev cycle. The > time savings is going to add up quick. still not read my mail where i actually compared it in real. or don't want? I really don't care about cool graphs but at facts for me as a USER (not developer) of C compiler. And the facts are: Lots of worktime were spent to make new C compiler from scratch and this resulted with thing 5 times larger, working at similar speed and producing similar code to GCC that is already considered bloat. Not something to be proud about. That's truth. and truth is the only thing i do care about. I leave hype and propaganda and cool graphic bars that shows a really not important part of C compiler performance - code parsing and generating unoptimized code (-O0). The truth is sad. Starting from fresh and not being able to beat 25-year old bloated gcc is just funny. That's my view - as a final "consumer", not developer. My view is that bloatware is replaced by another bloatware, which - because of it's young age - have greater future potential of bloat than GCC. This tens or hundreds of thousands of work-hours could be spent far better by getting latest gcc available on GPLv2 licence and start from there, just improving it. GNU communist licence for C compiler is not bad at all (contrary to other software).