Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:02:52 +0200 From: Joe Gain <joe.gain@gmail.com> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program Message-ID: <CAO6-GAecCOMfewuqKRLWpXcXiHR1eWeatuj2eFnyjmWreHda-w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200716330.71176@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206191952250.8234@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <854D02B1-CA89-4F5E-8773-DB05F2868D74@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200618290.46371@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CA%2BtpaK2ONz2wD7Zb4Hi9W6kk7RR8_VZR8YJTj9jAEj_b4_sDaQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200716330.71176@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> 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 ???)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAO6-GAecCOMfewuqKRLWpXcXiHR1eWeatuj2eFnyjmWreHda-w>