CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program
root1101 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 22:15:22 UTC 2012
21.06.2012 01:14, Chad Perrin пишет:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:40:56PM +0400, Евгений Лактанов wrote:
>> 20.06.2012 18:47, Mark Felder пишет:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:43:14 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
>>> <email address elided for purposes of courtesy> wrote:
>>>> [attribution lost by Wojciech Puchar and I'm too lazy to check]
>>>>> Why not make FreeBSD better for everyone by cooperating with the
>>>>> CLANG project?
>>>> because we already have great compiler - GCC. In spite of using GPL
>>> GCC performs well, but it is a very messy undocumented codebase which
>>> makes maintaining it a nightmare. Just ask Google -- you'll find many
>>> others saying the same thing. It would take MORE work to get FreeBSD
>>> devs up to speed on the GCC codebase to add the features we want than
>>> it is to cooperate with the CLANG community and help them make their
>>> compiler better than GCC in every test case.
>> It is the classic developer/user argument. It is also stupid. The user
>> side simply doesn't have the same needs, it can't understand how
>> freaking hard it is sometimes to debug a large and complex program in a
>> badly documented environment or worse with undocumented features. If it
>> works faster ergo it is better - that is the only criteria to really
>> have a meaning to a user.
> It's bikeshed painting. Someone who doesn't understand the many factors
> that apply, and doesn't even *want* to know, picks one thing he thinks he
> understands and argues about it in an attempt to make the entire project
> change course.
> Well, dammit, I *like* blue, and he can take his bucket of red paint home
> with him to paint his *own* bikeshed.
Haven't heard it described like this, but appropriate. Also the Danth's
law applies always)
More information about the freebsd-questions