Why Clang

Roger B.A. Klorese rogerk at queernet.org
Thu Jun 21 17:12:55 UTC 2012

On 6/21/12 10:08 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>>> Second, FreeBSD is not a commercial company, and while this argument 
>>> may have a merit
>>> for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD 
>>> itself.
>> You seem to be unaware of what percentage of the development and 
>> maintenance staff and the money to pay for them comes from those 
>> commercial users. If FreeBSD cannot maintain the critical mass to 
>> continue, it will not continue.
> but why it isn't clearly stated:
> "We put clang because sponsors wanted it."

Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not to be encumbered by a 
GPLv3 license. If there was a "shmoodlepoodle" compiler instead of 
"clang" that met this requirement instead and was at least as performant 
and stable, it would likely have been selected.  If you don't like clang 
as an option, go away and come back when you've built a better compiler 
and offered it under an acceptable license.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list