joe.gain at gmail.com
Wed Jun 6 19:24:40 UTC 2012
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:11 PM, 文鳥 <bunchou at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:05:59 +0100
> Matthew Seaman <matthew at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>> On 06/06/2012 18:28, Thomas D. Dean wrote:
>> > Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
You might be interested in this video:
>> 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 from is:
>> * fairly old
>> * doesn't perform as well as more recent compilers
>> * doesn't adhere to recently established standards
> There's another good reason for clang which nobody mentioned so far:
> clear diagnostics. If you ever had to wade through gcc's debug output
> and compare several thousand character long template instantiations,
> just to find where they differ and then see the clear problem
> descriptions that clang produces instead, you'll understand what I
> And in combination with libc++, which just arrived on stable, I am
> finally able to use all the features of C++11 that I want. Try to use
> e.g. std::regex even on g++47, and just see what happens.
> Of course, getting rid of GPL is an added benefit ;)
> After reading all those complaints, I just had to respond and thank
> everyone involved very much for importing clang and libc++. Great job
> well done!
> Best regards,
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
+49 (0)7531 60389
(...otherwise in ???)
More information about the freebsd-questions