Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:25:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206221624390.27991@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <201206221240.q5MCeVEF041711@mail.r-bonomi.com> References: <201206221240.q5MCeVEF041711@mail.r-bonomi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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", examples? All test shows that gcc code is not only bad, but very good. Why are you just saying things you know isn't true? > 2) The inability of GCC mamintainers to fix _long-standing_ bugs, some > have been identified for over a decade, and have not been fixed. That's true. still not that much. > 3) The continuously increasing trend of introducing 'non standard' features, No need to use them.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1206221624390.27991>