matthew at FreeBSD.org
Wed Jun 6 18:06:07 UTC 2012
On 06/06/2012 18:28, Thomas D. Dean wrote:
> Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
Yes, endlessly. Mostly on lists like freebsd-hackers at ... and at various
conferences and developer summits. Check the list archives.
> I would like to know the reasoning.
It's simple. gcc-4.2, which is what the base system compiler is derived
* fairly old
* doesn't perform as well as more recent compilers
* doesn't adhere to recently established standards
Clearly an update was necessary. Unfortunately, later versions of gcc
have switched to GPLv3, which is a viral license and unacceptable to the
Therefore clang was chosen from amongst a number of alternatives as the
best replacement. That makes it sound as if clang is a second class
option compared to recent gcc, but this is certainly not the case:
results from clang are comparable to the latest gcc versions and the
design of clang is such that further optimizations and improvements can
be readily incorporated.
> Or, is it simply a gratuitous change?
I can assure you that the changes were not made specifically to annoy
you. Of course there were very solid technical reasons behind what was
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 267 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20120606/dfbab84f/signature.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions