From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 20 08:45:16 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C51D106566C for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:45:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fred.morcos@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com (mail-ob0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16B0D8FC0C for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:45:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbun3 with SMTP id un3so735884obb.13 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:45:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=n0RecvWIk+DFLRr8wIB0h/Z+bppZek1hykn+IhELhEU=; b=aPR2NiO5wgc0nCH+aygepWVTaZvNiYRlKcJnl6jNjl1ZsQLwCErWfzOf5oH57lqGVZ C9rggS94M5DDO4pL/0O7YkYni0SZUdcLr65JYOpu0HxtGaDrY2/BjS0mr10V/MnBe3pP qYyqu0dwmYZMZqngVvNIuy4joLfKT0tVGZ10YGT7kYGeLXRcaiGYNF1A450CeoUQLo13 hKt2rpmTjTL9Nw8LNi/uAYoRj/IF8oigNpC03zEXEQA7cU+KWklM4TQ+WtdmpZylwhZG ONIC4yRfnl+ZrrmusW2Va071Kwt2GT6I7u0uyy8Sqo/FhJPLHOmVK8KP3V7C5KQx4STg 4k6A== Received: by 10.182.179.38 with SMTP id dd6mr23005212obc.16.1340181913966; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:45:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.241.7 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:44:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <854D02B1-CA89-4F5E-8773-DB05F2868D74@lpthe.jussieu.fr> From: Fred Morcos Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:44:52 +0200 Message-ID: To: Wojciech Puchar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Adam Vande More , Michel Talon , 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 08:45:16 -0000 The answer is: 1. gcc will still be available through the ports system. 2. The move to clang/llvm as a default compiler will reduce the amount of GPL code in the base system, eventually reducing distribution issues (especially for 3rd parties). 3. clang/llvm provides better error and warning messages, as well as good static code analysis, which helps reduce some classes of bugs and eventually will result in a more reliable FreeBSD system. 4. clang/llvm is improving quickly. 5. clang/llvm is more modular than gcc, although there are plans for gcc to become as modular, it will take time. 6. gcc produces faster code, but clang/llvm will eventually (soon enough) get there. 7. From the reasons above, it makes sense to complete a task sooner rather than later, especially that clang/llvm isn't showing any signs of weakness (lack of development power, etc). 8. There might be more reasons for or against, but I couldn't think of any. On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> >> >> Yes Wojciech, I can attempt an answer for you. =A0Pay attention, this ge= ts >> very complex. >> The decision to move to Clang was motivated by what is best for the >> project, and not what is best for=A0Wojciech. > > still not stopped personal attacks (last part of last sentence) but lets > forget. > > So please give an answer - not summary. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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"