Why Clang

Robert Bonomi bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com
Fri Jun 22 11:05:03 UTC 2012

> From owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org  Thu Jun 21 06:07:49 2012
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:06:12 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek at wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
> To: Michel Talon <talon at lpthe.jussieu.fr>
> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions at freebsd.org>, kpneal at pobox.com
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
> > for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself. If FreeBSD appears
> > as a subsidiary of some commercial company (say Juniper) i am not sure this will be good
> I think any project that size is actually a subsidiary and must be.

Which simply proves you don't know what you don't know.

> I just don't like that it isn't stated openly! 

No one on the Project would consider lying about such things, "just to make
Wojciech happy."

> instead of personal attacks, messing with my (and others) sentences and 
> posting evident lies just to "explain" the decision.

Maybe when you stop lying about what the others say.

> It is a difference between honest people and fools.

You have made it clear that -you- are a name-calling fool.
People have tried to explain, clearly, and politely, the *multiple*
factors that went into the decision.  You ignore everything else,
and fixate on the one that seems specious to you.

> There is nothing to prevent giving source with system. Non-Free software 
> doesn't have to be binary only.

Nice strawman.   But you cannot show where anybody has claimed it did.

> For paying this i would like FreeBSD to be maintained with quality and 
> performance being the only reason, not politics.

A demonstrable lie -- the only thing you care about is speed of execution.

> Nothing against Juniper (the make truly good working hardware), but if 
> they enforce decision because of their personal likes then it must be 
> stopped.

Therefore, _your_ attempts to enforce decisions because of your personal
likes must be stopped.

> GPLv3 based C compiler does not prevent making closed source software like 
> JunOS for example.

You don't _know_ that.  It is only your -opinion-.  How much of a financial
bond are you willing to put up, payable to, say, Juniper, if they "rely" on
your _opinion_, and it turns out to be wrong?`

> It is only "i hate GNU" type decision.

You lie.

> I hate too, and in spite of this am against removing gcc and replacing it 
> with much worse product.

Your closed--mind bias is showing.  You think it's ok to get _wrong_ answers
rather than correct answers, if you get the wrong answeers faster and the
correct answers somewhat slower.  GCC, even 4.21., is well known for 
generating "bad code" -- meaning 'logically incorrect and gives wrong 
answers', and sometimes 'code that cannot be successfully executed'  -- e.g.
it always segfaults or has some other fatal exception -- under a number of
conditions.  The variety of such instances increases with vritually -every-
minor "upgrade' to the compiler.  Code that worked under minor release 'x',
not work under x+1, because 'yet another' of these 'features' crept in..
There are "known bugs" of this sort in GCC that have been identified for 
over a -decade-.  But, the GCC source-code is such a swamp that *nobody* 
has been able to figure out, or find, *where* the problem is occurring --
let alone determine what needs to be changed, to fix it.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list