From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 20 06:02:54 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FFA9106566C for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:02:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joe.gain@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CD78FC0C for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:02:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibhm11 with SMTP id hm11so1168080wib.13 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:02:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=em4NW8hsbfn9rSHjQ7/djhAPswO0/7HrHoRzKnrHfFE=; b=vvsUMb65xhtgTUu9ZlgarZVcrppXXl+VqZ90KAlhRw7xiIf+t4Oh6SG8mRZBgBSec5 yfEZr4sh4oPubLIoyzpP+V8jFtGDNYoVZ00Vjo2v3p65n/Bf4vyXkb6NcCpjb8/7uBT6 3a8q6cU6ixsDxdiEUp8nsvpxpvXdaZtCggAf4lIzRl/deE3l5vA+RqIOVOxcleXzQ/9X Ooq6PJcJfAh9fYKtjjj/EnthNWmw1g6H0bwBQnIAyIBhYe8pG7W+1mx0pLuWxVMyClLn g0+1FZujEubc4niA7W1wCSdvZrGjfC3tP11yELiL07PaQ1wYR7ttYwD6cAUGgdZkIPmQ RALw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.218.216 with SMTP id k66mr10981680wep.191.1340172172714; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.220.96 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:02:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <854D02B1-CA89-4F5E-8773-DB05F2868D74@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:02:52 +0200 Message-ID: From: Joe Gain To: Wojciech Puchar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:02:54 -0000 On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc. =A0Is that in >> dispute or something? =A0Or is this just repetition in case we >> didn't hear you the first time? > > > just yesterday i've heard lots of otherwise claim. > > >> >> Try thinking of the transition as a step back to take many steps forward= . > > > What exactly step forward it means? > For now i see ONLY politics and aggression after pointing out facts. > > This doesn't look like serious behaviour of serious people. > I think that this is a more complicated decision than just choosing the 'fastest' compiler. There are many other variables involved, and of course the decision has a political dimension. Most things do. Diversity and competition are nice attributes to have in a system. Having alternatives allows users choose a compiler based on what criteria they think are important. Users also benefit from the experience, but more importantly, for such non-trivial projects as LLVM, different designs are interesting in themselves. I personally, am looking forward to seeing what the lldb debugger can do. Historically, some of the most important software projects have been themselves disasters, but they've lead people to change the way they think about a problem and lead to later better solutions-- for example MULTICS ;) This is part of the development process. And this can't just happen in a laboratory. LLVM needs projects like FreeBS= D to test it and simply be involved. I notice that bitrig, which recently forked from OpenBSD, and which want to be a more progressive operating system will also be swapping to LLVM and Clang. We don't know what possible benefits there will be from the LLVM project. But there will be some. I was a bit frustrated about being stuck with gcc4.2 for a while, and was trying to compile as many ports as possible using gcc4.6 (FreeBSD 8.2). There seemed to be some improvement in performance, but now I don't bother, world is compiled with Clang and the ports are compiled with gcc4.2 and everything works (most of the time.) I'm satisfied with performance. I don't really understand your concerns. I mean unless you're a fairly radical environmentalist and are really concerned about saving every clock-cycle, running a bit slower really isn't that much of a problem most of the time. > >> =A0Or just change your compiler. > > Will i be able to compile FreeBSD base system with gcc after some time? > not sure. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.o= rg" --=20 joe gain jacob-burckhardt-str. 16 78464 konstanz germany +49 (0)7531 60389 (...otherwise in ???)