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).
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
On 12/30/2014 09:45 AM, Riley Baird wrote:
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
Better is very broad. Most people in these lists would see the GPL as an
advantage, but none would deny that Clang or LLVM are essentially free and
compatible (maybe after some proofreading work) with the FSF's Free System
Distribution Guidelines. As much as I prefer GCC and the GNU GPL in
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Isaac David Reyes González
isacdaa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hell, this is though.
Tough I mean
