Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 07:40:31 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <201206221240.q5MCeVEF041711@mail.r-bonomi.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211933560.9208@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 12:44:17 2012
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:36:03 +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
>
> >>
> >> sources please!
> >
> > Google "GPLv3 court case". There are no applicable results. Until a Judge
> > decides what the license truly means everyone using it is at risk.
>
> true.
>
> But why anyone from FreeBSD fundation didn't just write official letter
> to GNU "Free" Software Foundation asking for just that case?
Because it doesn't address an of the *OTHER* valid reasons why GCC is
being replaced -- among them:
1) GCC's continuously increasing propensity to generate "bad code",
2) The inability of GCC mamintainers to fix _long-standing_ bugs, some
have been identified for over a decade, and have not been fixed.
3) The continuously increasing trend of introducing 'non standard' features,
4) The growing need to 'write around' correct/valid code that GCC will not
compile.
5) The fact that the GCC code is 'unmaintainable' -- *NO*ONE* (other than
someone who has been working with GCC internals for "forever" --a decade
at an absolute minimum) has any chance of 'understanding' what it is
doing internally.
GPLv3 concerns are 'incidental' to those 'fundamental' issues. It may have
been "the straw that broke the camel's back", but there were lots of other
VALID reasons to trashcan GCC.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201206221240.q5MCeVEF041711>