From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 20 16:35:26 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 39A201065796 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:35:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com (mail-bk0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF79C8FC16 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:35:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkvi18 with SMTP id i18so8045279bkv.13 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:35:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tnccvx2XXdzqNsm0v97cIe/a5W1W7jsD5ZIDeXG82JE=; b=ntqjpUxaxzHxJbqL6blK/1VJGDvor0gBybbDN3zpZZWF2xmzKGkH9a/3Xl65bOEU4y XYa/Wfl6u1BwoAbo1ONiBPvzMrIa1jdFA7l2c5CQbb9MhMoJ5JdZgftFKFJ78BgXsspZ WMgVyLHgg3dbIORhOKoZ9+zVZq5izmKs+UUhybz6loBuXwX0LuvqzGbtdu5Nh14TWBOx mMbNgIHM+Ns62AeCtQPZ0bXJznMI5nUGXZxu6NZOZUhXJSvVmbPyYUS7/eNnLvU2zP7O JeVuDHIvcrenRcBueVR2IYogpMA1hV/9xPZ9KyXOPtaMW0uOOQz/1KxeIPYv8bJ2Rcvo FaVQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.109.198 with SMTP id hu6mr22968926lab.21.1340210124383; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.24.131 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:35:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201206201015.q5KAFKKj026496@mail.r-bonomi.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:35:24 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fernando_Apestegu=EDa?= To: Wojciech Puchar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Robert Bonomi 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 16:35:26 -0000 On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >>> still not stopped personal attacks (last part of last sentence) but let= s >>> forget. >> >> >> Fact; that was NOT a personal attack. =A0Your entire line of reasoning s= o >> far >> has been about -your- preferences, and things as you see them, for _your= _ > > > What is specifically my preference? > > >> =A01) Your opinion about the choice of the standard compiler "doesn't >> matter". > > > Once more - messing with my words and you know this. I am saying that it > doesn't matter others than performance. > > Clang performance is just bad. > > >> =A02) The decision _has_ been made. The only question at this point is >> "when". > > > And can be reversed because it is faulty. > > I successfully predicted the fall of linux (in quality point of view) yea= rs > ago, then netbsd - after this and my prediction were good. > > Now i predict FreeBSD will fall within 2015 time frame. I don't want to be picky, but predictions (of the future performance of clang) were not a valid point as you previously said ;) Performance is not the only thing that matters. As a developer (not a FreeBSD one), sometimes I would give everything to change a tool with good performance for another one with less performance but with a better design and documentation so I do not spend two days trying to figure out what the hell the previous thousands of programmers before me tried to do :) It could be risky to switch to clang, but if the decision proves wrong, we can always go back to GPL2 gcc, evaluate the possibility of GPL3 gcc or even use another compiler. Besides, it seems to me very objective that the pace of development of clang big and it can only be bigger if FreeBSD uses it as its base compiler. > What i mean fall - that it would be better to use older version as long a= s > possible because newer are worse. > > For now > > - FreeBSD 6 was an improvement > - FreeBSD 7 was an improvement, except first releases but that's normal > - FreeBSD 8 was a big improvement in performance and quality. > > > FreeBSD 9 as for now: > > - have similar performance at most > - have some improvement and important functionality like TRIM support. > - have some useful functionality like softdep journalling, but risky. Sti= ll > - forcing full check reveals some inconsistencies now and then. > > FreeBSD 10 will unlikely be better, but for sure slower unless you will > force gcc build that MAYBE will work. possibly not. > > So now there will be more and more backports done by users just for new > drivers until something that replace FreeBSD will be available. Assuming > there will at all. > > Wish i am wrong. Twice i wasn't > > _______________________________________________ > 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"