Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:16:48 -0400 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <20120620081648.6598fb59@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201346580.24255@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <20f61898ce668c96f8882981cf8e24f6@remailer.privacy.at> <4FE1AD27.8000704@gmail.com> <CAH3a3KWHYC%2BpbkdQWF4Pfqv=W0Ldzo8q4T8Ta5wgsryocxNFuA@mail.gmail.com> <20120620073454.0a5f2f87@scorpio> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201346580.24255@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:48:15 +0200 (CEST) Wojciech Puchar articulated: > > A somewhat haphazardly search of the postings in this forum would > > seem to indicate that any post questioning the ethics or usefulness > > of FreeBSD as compared to other operating systems that elicit six > > or more > > strange but usefulness of FreeBSD wasn't questioned. The ethics of using "clang" most certainly were. Perhaps you missed the word "or" that I used to distinquish between the possible causes. Furthermore, the "usefulness" of using "clang" VS GCC were also voiced by at least on poster. He stated, correctly or not is not an issue here, that "clang" produces slower code VS GCC for math intensive operations. It was also pointed out that Linux is solidly in bed with GCC, at least at the present time. Therefore, the "other operating system" requirement has been fulfilled. I did not say, nor mean to convey that every condition had to be met in every post in every thread. It is more of a cumulative effect. Very easy to overlook unless each post is read in its entirety. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120620081648.6598fb59>