CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program

Chad Perrin perrin at
Wed Jun 20 17:11:13 UTC 2012

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 02:02:35PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>still not stopped personal attacks (last part of last sentence) but lets
> >>forget.
> >
> >Fact; that was NOT a personal attack.  Your entire line of reasoning so far
> >has been about -your- preferences, and things as you see them, for _your_
> What is specifically my preference?

It seems that your preference is for everyone to focus on specific
use-case performance benchmarks that may not be valid in a month.

> >
> > 1) Your opinion about the choice of the standard compiler "doesn't matter".
> 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.

That's not messing with your words.  It's pointing out that the fact you
appear to believe you know the One True Answer isn't convincing many
people, and almost certainly will have zero effect on anyone in a
position to actually affect the choice of compiler for the base system.

> >
> > 2) The decision _has_ been made. The only question at this point is "when".
> And can be reversed because it is faulty.

You say it's faulty, discounting all concerns that are not *your*
concerns.  Saying something, however, does not make it so.

> 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.
> What i mean fall - that it would be better to use older version as
> long as possible because newer are worse.

Have fun with that.  I, for one, see the change to Clang as a good thing,
for homogenizing and liberating the licensing terms of the base system if
nothing else.

> 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.

Someone in this extended discussion mentioned that there are efforts
underway to make sure the base system will compile cleanly with both
Clang and GCC 4.2+, so I think you're just making up complaints here.
Someone (other than Wojciech Puchar, who would just be talking out of his
ass) correct me if I'm mistaken.

> 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

When you set your own standards for "success", regardless of anyone
else's thoughts on the matter, you'll probably always be right, no matter
what predictions you make.  That's especially the case when your
standards are "If FreeBSD chooses Clang, it will fail by virtue of using
Clang."  Using a meaningless tautology as your standard for failure is
essentially irrelevant to . . . everything.

Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: ]

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list