[TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD

[Scott Long]

On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
>> hi,
>> 
>> ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we
>> aim to import into HEAD in roughly a week. We would like the initial
> It was promised that before the import, the public discussion on
> the mailing list will happen. So far, nothing appeared on either
> arch@ or current@ providing argumentation why should we accept this.

Sounds like you're inviting the discussion right now.  I'll start =-)

1. I hate gcc with the burning heat of a million suns.  It's not a tool, it's a political weapon wielded by the FSF and their acolytes.  It's also a crummy piece of software that has been "good enough" for far too long.  Its development model is a burden to work with and has been a major liability towards FreeBSD releases in the past.  Its demise cannot happen soon enough.

2. Due to the political bent of the GPL3 and the FSF's insistence on shoving it down everyone's throats, FreeBSD is stuck with a dead-end version of gcc.  This has already been a liability in terms of addressing bugs in gcc itself, and it will only get worse as technology moves forward and gcc stands still.

3. Clang/LLVM has an active development base and a clear future.  It will move forward while gcc rots.  There simply is no future left in gcc unless the FreeBSD project decides to embrace the GPL3, and that's a move that has already been heavily discussed, debated, and decided on.  Anecdotally, I think that FreeBSD is benefiting from shunning the GPL3; it's made it an attractive option for companies looking for an unencumbered OS for their products.

4. While Clang is immature now, it will mature in the near future, and FreeBSD will benefit from that process.  FreeBSD will get built-in access to upcoming technologies like GCD+Blocks and better code editors and development tools that gcc will never support.  It'll break free of the development stranglehold that exists within gcc.  Clang has shown good agility in adapting to the needs of FreeBSD and the legacy of gcc, thanks in large part to the efforts of people like Roman.  Gcc has been nothing but drama and headache, even with the valiant efforts of people like Alexander Kabaev.

5.  If all of this turns out to not be true and Clang/LLVM fails, FreeBSD has lost nothing and can remove it from the base system.  Gcc remains where it is for now, at least until it's time for the "remove gcc discussion".

The future is !gcc.  Putting Clang+LLVM into a position where it can be easily embraced by FreeBSD users will greatly benefit the FreeBSD project.

Scott