On 30/12/14 07:20, Luke Shumaker wrote: > At Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:45:12 -0800, > Ali Abdul Ghani wrote: >> welcome >> This delightful News >> I have some suggestions >> >> - Replace clang to gcc > > Well, it's based on OpenBSD, which uses clang or gcc based on the > architecture (as clang does not support all of the architectures that > OpenBSD does). Further, the switch to clang was pretty recent. Using > GCC probably would be pretty easy. > > (to those on the gnu-linux-libre list: the original email was > forwarded to the Parabola dev list, whre a couple of other replies > happened)
Is there any significant reason, other than the license, that gcc is better than clang? I really don't want to deviate too much from upstream, and as long as the license is free, I don't see a problem. If it's about the license, I can see that OpenBSD's, or Debian's decision of which compiler to use would be influential, and thus they should use gcc. But LibertyBSD is not likely to be influential, so I don't see the point in changing the default compiler.