Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:11:12 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program Message-ID: <20120620171112.GB23095@hemlock.hydra> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201353500.24316@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <201206201015.q5KAFKKj026496@mail.r-bonomi.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201353500.24316@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 02:02:35PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >>still not stopped personal attacks (last part of last sentence) but lets > >>forget. > > > >Fact; that was NOT a personal attack. Your entire line of reasoning so far > >has been about -your- preferences, and things as you see them, for _your_ > > What is specifically my preference? It seems that your preference is for everyone to focus on specific use-case performance benchmarks that may not be valid in a month. > > > > 1) 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. That's not messing with your words. It's pointing out that the fact you appear to believe you know the One True Answer isn't convincing many people, and almost certainly will have zero effect on anyone in a position to actually affect the choice of compiler for the base system. > > > > 2) The decision _has_ been made. The only question at this point is "when". > > And can be reversed because it is faulty. You say it's faulty, discounting all concerns that are not *your* concerns. Saying something, however, does not make it so. > > I successfully predicted the fall of linux (in quality point of > view) years ago, then netbsd - after this and my prediction were > good. > > Now i predict FreeBSD will fall within 2015 time frame. > What i mean fall - that it would be better to use older version as > long as possible because newer are worse. Have fun with that. I, for one, see the change to Clang as a good thing, for homogenizing and liberating the licensing terms of the base system if nothing else. > > 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. Still - 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. Someone in this extended discussion mentioned that there are efforts underway to make sure the base system will compile cleanly with both Clang and GCC 4.2+, so I think you're just making up complaints here. Someone (other than Wojciech Puchar, who would just be talking out of his ass) correct me if I'm mistaken. > > 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 When you set your own standards for "success", regardless of anyone else's thoughts on the matter, you'll probably always be right, no matter what predictions you make. That's especially the case when your standards are "If FreeBSD chooses Clang, it will fail by virtue of using Clang." Using a meaningless tautology as your standard for failure is essentially irrelevant to . . . everything. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120620171112.GB23095>