Why Clang

Volodymyr Kostyrko c.kworr at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 09:23:24 UTC 2012

Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> 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.
> not really understood this.
> --------
> if anyone commits any code under this
> license into the tree
> --------
> into what tree? gcc tree or FreeBSD tree?

I was talking about FreeBSD sources here.

> FreeBSD has it's own copy of gcc so any change in gcc doesn't
> automatically change FreeBSD code and licencing.

FreeBSD has old and abandoned copy of gcc, the last version available 
under GPLv2 license.

>> 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.
> the right way is to use best performing tools as long as no law problems
> exist.

There can be different ways for selecting best tools. Someone needs 
better performance while other one state that stability is a must. For 
now clang is a choice for stability and not the performance. Yet due to 
the rapid development this is subject to change while gcc is not. Think 
of it like we are changing a car that shines for the one that can move.

Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list