Why Clang

Volodymyr Kostyrko c.kworr at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 08:29:19 UTC 2012

Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> Here[1] we can read a program linking agains a gpl v3 library should
>> be released
>> under the gplv3 too. However, the only concern would be when the
>> program is
>> implicitly linked against libgcc right? Well, there's even an
>> exception[2] for this.
> this is exactly how i understand that. Anyway DragonFly BSD developers
> (which is BSD licenced) don't have any problems and just use latest gcc.
>> I'm not saying moving to clang is a bad idea.
> I am saying this. Moving to worse compiler is a definitely bad idea.
> This is not a place of politics. As GPLv3 doesn't prevent it from being
> used in FreeBSD and is better - it should be used. It's simple.
> If clang would be better - it should be used.
>> Can anyone provide an example of viral propagation of the license if
>> we compile
>> the base system with a gpl v3 gcc?
> there are none probably.
> Before actually testing it i believed we move to clang because it is
> better compiler AND and supported a move. Good lesson to test first and
> don't believe, even with FreeBSD.

The bad thing about GPLv3 is that if anyone commits any code under this 
license into the tree vendors that use our code base for making their 
own OSes will ditch FreeBSD as they can be sued by FSF. Juniper for 
example. It would be wise to listen to their point of view on GPLv3.

As for DragonflyBSD they AFAIK are taking the path of fixing world to 
build on any stock compiler as we currently do. And they have no such 
user base to support.

FreeBSD is heading the right way: bringing BSD toolchain to the world 
and fixing world compilation with gcc46 from ports would give anyone a 
choice on which compiler to use keeping GPL out of tree.

Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list