From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 31 06:03:21 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5BE0106564A; Mon, 31 May 2010 06:03:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F3EC8FC0C; Mon, 31 May 2010 06:03:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ydesk.samsco.home (ydesk.samsco.home [192.168.254.15]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4V63Hvp055036; Mon, 31 May 2010 00:03:17 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Scott Long In-Reply-To: <20100530135859.GI83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 00:03:17 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <508DA8CE-749A-46B4-AF0B-392DB08CBBCD@samsco.org> References: <20100529130240.GA99732@freebsd.org> <20100530135859.GI83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> To: Kostik Belousov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-50.0 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: Roman Divacky , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 06:03:21 -0000 On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote: >> hi, >>=20 >> ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we >> aim to import into HEAD in roughly a week. We would like the initial > It was promised that before the import, the public discussion on > the mailing list will happen. So far, nothing appeared on either > arch@ or current@ providing argumentation why should we accept this. Sounds like you're inviting the discussion right now. I'll start =3D-) 1. I hate gcc with the burning heat of a million suns. It's not a tool, = it's a political weapon wielded by the FSF and their acolytes. It's = also a crummy piece of software that has been "good enough" for far too = long. Its development model is a burden to work with and has been a = major liability towards FreeBSD releases in the past. Its demise cannot = happen soon enough. 2. Due to the political bent of the GPL3 and the FSF's insistence on = shoving it down everyone's throats, FreeBSD is stuck with a dead-end = version of gcc. This has already been a liability in terms of = addressing bugs in gcc itself, and it will only get worse as technology = moves forward and gcc stands still. 3. Clang/LLVM has an active development base and a clear future. It = will move forward while gcc rots. There simply is no future left in gcc = unless the FreeBSD project decides to embrace the GPL3, and that's a = move that has already been heavily discussed, debated, and decided on. = Anecdotally, I think that FreeBSD is benefiting from shunning the GPL3; = it's made it an attractive option for companies looking for an = unencumbered OS for their products. 4. While Clang is immature now, it will mature in the near future, and = FreeBSD will benefit from that process. FreeBSD will get built-in = access to upcoming technologies like GCD+Blocks and better code editors = and development tools that gcc will never support. It'll break free of = the development stranglehold that exists within gcc. Clang has shown = good agility in adapting to the needs of FreeBSD and the legacy of gcc, = thanks in large part to the efforts of people like Roman. Gcc has been = nothing but drama and headache, even with the valiant efforts of people = like Alexander Kabaev. 5. If all of this turns out to not be true and Clang/LLVM fails, = FreeBSD has lost nothing and can remove it from the base system. Gcc = remains where it is for now, at least until it's time for the "remove = gcc discussion". The future is !gcc. Putting Clang+LLVM into a position where it can be = easily embraced by FreeBSD users will greatly benefit the FreeBSD = project. Scott