Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:07:42 +0200 From: Peter Ulrich Kruppa <ulrich@pukruppa.de> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <4FE1BD0E.5060300@pukruppa.de> In-Reply-To: <1340192731894-5720039.post@n5.nabble.com> References: <4FCF9333.70201@speakeasy.org> <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <CAH3a3KWKNF5Bt-8=KgtbMh=rV6GfUO7OaeE6-SutxkcRe8cG3Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206191953280.8234@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20120619205225.21d6709f.freebsd@edvax.de> <20f61898ce668c96f8882981cf8e24f6@remailer.privacy.at> <4FE1AD27.8000704@gmail.com> <CAH3a3KWHYC%2BpbkdQWF4Pfqv=W0Ldzo8q4T8Ta5wgsryocxNFuA@mail.gmail.com> <1340192731894-5720039.post@n5.nabble.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20.06.2012 13:45, Jakub Lach wrote: > Really, this format of discussion is rather exception > than rule (from my experience). > > Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me, > but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD > mailing list at all. Actually I can't remember any flame-war about system compilers - this is the first one. But I believe it is a good proof, that clang is a serious alternative to gcc - else people would talk about "an interesting project" or something like that. Greetings Peter. > > -- > View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Why-Clang-tp5715861p5720039.html > Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FE1BD0E.5060300>