my build time impact of clang 5.0

[Dan Mack]

Jakub Lach <jakub_lach at mailplus.pl> writes:

> On the other hand, I'm having tremendous increases in Unixbench scores
> comparing to 
> 11-STABLE in the April (same machine, clang 4 then, clang 5 now) (about
> 40%).
>
> I have never seen something like that, and I'm running Unixbench on -STABLE
> since
> 2008.

Agree; clang/llvm and friends have added a lot of value.  It's worth it
I think.

It is however getting harder to continue with a source based update
model, which I prefer even though most people just use package managers
today.

I still like to read the commits and understand what's changing, why,
and select the version I am comfortable with given the nuances of my
configuration(s).  I think that's why 'knock-on-wood' I've been able to
track mostly CURRENT and/or STABLE without any outages since about 1998
on production systems :-)