Why Clang?

Nomen Nescio nobody at dizum.com
Mon Jun 18 12:26:59 UTC 2012

> clang already compiles the system perfectly well.  I'm using it by
> default for that on my personal machines without problems.  Any
> remaining clang-bugs in the system would be few and far between and
> generally in areas which are quite hard to trigger.
> clang with ports is less well covered.  A lot of ported code is not
> written to the highest quality, nor does it conform to recently (or not
> so recently) published standards.  It's a hard task for any compiler.

I'm sure autotools doesn't help. I ASSume that issue doesn't exist with the
system itself so yeah I would expect gnu's autotools not to get along with
anything but gcc (damn them!) Ports are probably mostly written for Linux
since that is the only "operating system" that exists as far as they know.

> One point that possibly hasn't been as apparent as it might is that
> FreeBSD adopting clang has had a big effect on clang development, and
> not just the other way round.  We're discovering bugs and getting fixes
> committed upstream pretty effectively.

I'm very grateful for that and I give two thumbs up to FreeBSD for doing so
much to help free us from the Marxist gnu ecosystem. I meant it. I'm
seriously considering ditching my long-time Linux setup for FreeBSD when you
guys make clang the default and build everything with it. I've used FreeBSD
on and off in the past and I'm thinking about switching back.

Thank you, FreeBSD team! Hopefully all the *BSD OS will follow your lead in

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list