From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 19 18:02:51 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F67106566B for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:02:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf2006a@yahoo.com) Received: from web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.87.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A7568FC12 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:02:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf2006a@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 63592 invoked by uid 60001); 19 Jan 2009 17:36:11 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=jDSrprgUB0cqopWW5pBR6z3MgeEq8I0TpslSDm3lr7SCbucsIY3u3nWr4BnO+K5tr5KH0sNv+ElRuyBQ/NQoakXLCLwTEZb5KjEww1spcufzlYSquTR3Bx0PVkrNrAoyl2Yb2HfoMwv0AugwJfaF7pXYJoG59Pz3nTJYP+ILVTQ=; X-YMail-OSG: RYlivnYVM1lARnQZ4DjF9IyZn0RBVW0jPVVfR.sEV_tswZMhAfR9j1U6ViEA4P.qSyW9lAZDNaLgE1dz6sDzalT4sBipQiXztFRgaYuyjARXZkthEpi61spPpuBPboqFLkuvqHhIJ6NiNAGdMR95TFkTn6h16cBwPbYtq_bOmIxwLVcdbhlX50NRtpqb93X9.pXYIg-- Received: from [66.35.0.170] by web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:36:11 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:36:11 -0800 (PST) From: bf To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <540351.62331.qm@web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:18:54 +0000 Cc: bms@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why LLVM may be a step forward X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bf2006a@yahoo.com List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:02:52 -0000 Bruce Simpson wrote: > Hi, > I'll chime in with my analysis... Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: > >> I never took care about GPLv2 and v3 >> >>> differences but know, this seems to come to relevance in some way. I ducked in here to find tinderbox results, and I find the fur flying over this compiler issue ... > [1] RAW described the phenomenon of "paradigm shift" in terms of waiting > for a current generation of scientific dogma-followers to die off before > a new, testable *and* experience-able theroem about reality could be > shared with all other humans. A bit cutting, but sometimes we have to be > to administer the medicine! Er, you mean like after he read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"? If you're going to take the trouble to mention someone in connection with these ideas, you may as well give credit where credit is due, rather than citing some derivative writer. ... > I wager this "strange loop" of improved compiler software, originates > from something which process engineers e.g. in agriculture and the food > sciences have understood for years -- and an isolated example of where > engineering in the physical world, can lead to better engineering in the > virtual world. I wager that the only reason this example is "isolated" is that you haven't looked very hard. My question (and it's sincere, I don't ask to just to rile anyone) is: regardless of the opinions we express here, how "free" is FreeBSD with respect to this choice? That is, are there organizations or individuals that now support FreeBSD, without whom development may slow or stall, that have strong positions with regard to adopting a particular compiler and toolchain, or not adopting another, and thus may dictate the choice? Is there a line drawn in the sand with respect to adopting later versions of gcc in the base system because of the license, for example, or is that still to be decided? Regards, b.