CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program
fernando.apesteguia at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 16:35:26 UTC 2012
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Wojciech Puchar
<wojtek at wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
>>> still not stopped personal attacks (last part of last sentence) but lets
>> Fact; that was NOT a personal attack. Your entire line of reasoning so
>> has been about -your- preferences, and things as you see them, for _your_
> What is specifically my preference?
>> 1) Your opinion about the choice of the standard compiler "doesn't
> Once more - messing with my words and you know this. I am saying that it
> doesn't matter others than performance.
> Clang performance is just bad.
>> 2) The decision _has_ been made. The only question at this point is
> And can be reversed because it is faulty.
> I successfully predicted the fall of linux (in quality point of view) years
> ago, then netbsd - after this and my prediction were good.
> Now i predict FreeBSD will fall within 2015 time frame.
I don't want to be picky, but predictions (of the future performance
of clang) were not a valid point as you previously said ;)
Performance is not the only thing that matters. As a developer (not a
FreeBSD one), sometimes I would give everything to change a tool with
good performance for another one with less performance but with a
better design and documentation so I do not spend two days trying to
figure out what the hell the previous thousands of programmers before
me tried to do :)
It could be risky to switch to clang, but if the decision proves
wrong, we can always go back to GPL2 gcc, evaluate the possibility of
GPL3 gcc or even use another compiler. Besides, it seems to me very
objective that the pace of development of clang big and it can only be
bigger if FreeBSD uses it as its base compiler.
> What i mean fall - that it would be better to use older version as long as
> possible because newer are worse.
> For now
> - FreeBSD 6 was an improvement
> - FreeBSD 7 was an improvement, except first releases but that's normal
> - FreeBSD 8 was a big improvement in performance and quality.
> FreeBSD 9 as for now:
> - have similar performance at most
> - have some improvement and important functionality like TRIM support.
> - have some useful functionality like softdep journalling, but risky. Still
> - forcing full check reveals some inconsistencies now and then.
> FreeBSD 10 will unlikely be better, but for sure slower unless you will
> force gcc build that MAYBE will work. possibly not.
> So now there will be more and more backports done by users just for new
> drivers until something that replace FreeBSD will be available. Assuming
> there will at all.
> Wish i am wrong. Twice i wasn't
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-questions