Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:46:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206181844520.26886@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <op.wf3x32h134t2sn@tech304> References: <4FCF9333.70201@speakeasy.org> <4FCF9C07.2000607@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206161815550.41364@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <op.wf0i64pg34t2sn@me-pc> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206172212440.2506@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <op.wf3upvdc34t2sn@tech304> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206181749160.78762@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <op.wf3wd8vf34t2sn@tech304> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206181829210.99007@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <op.wf3x32h134t2sn@tech304>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > We already have the latest available with GPLv2, which is very far behind and > it requires GCC codebase experts to make any changes at all. This is > equivalent to letting any random coder make major changes to OpenSSL -- you > simply cannot afford to risk it. so not doing anything and just spent that time drinking beer seems to be better. Anyway "far behind" gcc is roughly as good as "leading edge" clang. Actually - lots of time spend and zero gain.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1206181844520.26886>