Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:44:52 +0200
From:      Fred Morcos <fred.morcos@gmail.com>
To:        Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
Cc:        Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com>, Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program
Message-ID:  <CAH3a3KWy9Qzf5BOUGWM3TLZe5XV3gKz0WhWQJ1q8j9F3FV7hYg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201024140.40030@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> <CA%2BtpaK0XUEBpT7SiwsY=%2BwEPgOd=TAh=Eh7fwim1Odq1jUqZag@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200854450.71564@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CA%2BtpaK0S=tsYfUhuL6BsUPu7u%2BtB47gMGGTp6Abevh0_1CaayA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201024140.40030@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
<wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> 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"



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAH3a3KWy9Qzf5BOUGWM3TLZe5XV3gKz0WhWQJ1q8j9F3FV7hYg>