On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:14:09PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > >And why you think it's not better then gcc? > > because - as you already should know - test shows otherwise.
You just ignored everything Volodymyr Kostyrko said about the other factors that are also important for a compiler being considered "better". Good job. I have a hint to share with you, though: Ignoring an argument does not make it wrong. > > As well as FreeBSD running predictable with gcc anyway. . . . for some use cases, evidently including yours. In my case, Clang's stability and predictability is better than GCC's, and in some other cases it may be *much* better. In the cases where it isn't, that's a case of standards-noncompliant code in a port causing problems, and it is a problem that is being fixed prior to FreeBSD 10 release with Clang as the sole compiler in the base system (last I heard). This is what happens when you use a more standards-compliant compiler: you get more stable and predictable behavior. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
