Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
I would like to know the reasoning.
Or, is it simply a gratuitous change?
Tom Dean
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questio
On Jun 6, 2012 10:32 AM, "Thomas D. Dean" wrote:
>
> Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
>
> I would like to know the reasoning.
>
> Or, is it simply a gratuitous change?
>
> Tom Dean
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mail
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2012 10:32 AM, "Thomas D. Dean" wrote:
> >
> > Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
> >
> > I would like to know the reasoning.
> >
> > Or, is it simply a gratuitous change?
> >
> > Tom Dean
> > ___
On 06/06/2012 18:28, Thomas D. Dean wrote:
> Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
Yes, endlessly. Mostly on lists like freebsd-hackers@... and at various
conferences and developer summits. Check the list archives.
> I would like to know the reasoning.
It's simple. gc
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2012 10:32 AM, "Thomas D. Dean" wrote:
> >
> > Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
> >
> > I would like to know the reasoning.
> >
> > Or, is it simply a gratuitous change?
> >
> > Tom Dean
> > ___
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:05:59 +0100
Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 18:28, Thomas D. Dean wrote:
> > Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
>
> Yes, endlessly. Mostly on lists like freebsd-hackers@... and at
> various conferences and developer summits. Check the li
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:11 PM, 文鳥 wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:05:59 +0100
> Matthew Seaman wrote:
>
>> On 06/06/2012 18:28, Thomas D. Dean wrote:
>> > Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
>>
You might be interested in this video:
http://www.llvm.org/devmtg/2011-11/
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Wed Jun 6 12:33:25 2012
> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:28:19 -0700
> From: "Thomas D. Dean"
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Why Clang
>
> Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
>
&g
Has the discussion on why change to clang been made available?
I would like to know the reasoning.
CLANG isn't GNU licenced. Getting rid of communist licence is right, but
still it should not be the prime reason for doing things, as having GNU
licenced gcc doesn't really hurt.
personally
Clearly an update was necessary. Unfortunately, later versions of gcc
have switched to GPLv3, which is a viral license and unacceptable to the
FreeBSD project.
wasn't aware of that.
Therefore clang was chosen from amongst a number of alternatives as the
best replacement. That makes it soun
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:17:19 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
and - at least for now - clang itself is very slow. But produces not
worse (or better) code than gcc.
Clang is consistently faster at compiling than GCC and it is very clean
and modular -- not bloated.
__
Clang is consistently faster at compiling than GCC and it is very clean and
modular -- not bloated.
-r-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 37025016 12 cze 21:46 /usr/bin/clang
well..
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mail
On 17 Jun 2012, at 21:13, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>>
>> Clang is consistently faster at compiling than GCC and it is very clean and
>> modular -- not bloated.
>
> -r-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 37025016 12 cze 21:46 /usr/bin/clang
>
> well..
hope you just left the debugging symbols in and statica
What is the current status of Clang vs. GCC as default compiler for ports and
for
"make buildworld" and "make buildkernel" in HEAD and 9.0-STABLE?
Now one concern is wine not working when Clang is used to "make buildworld".
I see from reading the emailing lists that the intention is to make Clan
On 17 June 2012 21:37, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> What is the current status of Clang vs. GCC as default compiler for ports and
> for
> "make buildworld" and "make buildkernel" in HEAD and 9.0-STABLE?
http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang
> Now one concern is wine not working when Clang is used to
> On 17 June 2012 21:37, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> > What is the current status of Clang vs. GCC as default compiler for ports
> > and for
> > "make buildworld" and "make buildkernel" in HEAD and 9.0-STABLE?
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang
> > Now one concern is wine not working when Clan
On 18/06/2012 05:37, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> What is the current status of Clang vs. GCC as default compiler for ports and
> for
> "make buildworld" and "make buildkernel" in HEAD and 9.0-STABLE?
Most ports work fine with clang -- at the last count 18252 out of 23661
ports compiled just fine. Of
Thomas Mueller wrote:
Now one concern is wine not working when Clang is used to "make buildworld".
For me I'm just waiting on toolchain stabilization as both this one and
(open|libre)office fail because of libgcc_s compiled with clang on amd64.
--
Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.
___
> clang already compiles the system perfectly well. I'm using it by
> default for that on my personal machines without problems. Any
> remaining clang-bugs in the system would be few and far between and
> generally in areas which are quite hard to trigger.
>
> clang with ports is less well cover
Clang is consistently faster at compiling than GCC and it is very clean and
modular -- not bloated.
-r-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 37025016 12 cze 21:46 /usr/bin/clang
well..
hope you just left the debugging symbols in and statically linked it?
standard FreeBSD built, assumed freebsd build syste
Hi,
On Monday, 18 June 2012 09:19:28 Thomas Mueller wrote:
> > On 17 June 2012 21:37, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> > > Now one concern is wine not working when Clang is used to "make
> > > buildworld".
> >
> > This isn't good. Can you please follow up with more debugging
> > information? (gdb backtra
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 15:13:05 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
Clang is consistently faster at compiling than GCC and it is very clean
and modular -- not bloated.
-r-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 37025016 12 cze 21:46 /usr/bin/clang
well..
# ls -la /usr/local/bin/clang
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root whee
Are you sure CLANG is the bloated project?
already posted comparision.
your seems like too much propaganda.
I don't say clang is just bad, but i prefer real data over hype.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailma
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:50:37 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
I don't say clang is just bad, but i prefer real data over hype.
This is the most memorable and impacting set of graphs that I remember. I
haven't followed the data much since.
http://clang.llvm.org/performance-2008-10-31.html
I don't say clang is just bad, but i prefer real data over hype.
This is the most memorable and impacting set of graphs that I remember. I
haven't followed the data much since.
http://clang.llvm.org/performance-2008-10-31.html
Now imagine having to rebuild projects constantly during your dev
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:37:55 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
This tens or hundreds of thousands of work-hours could be spent far
better by getting latest gcc available on GPLv2 licence and start from
there, just improving it.
We already have the latest available with GPLv2, which is very f
We already have the latest available with GPLv2, which is very far behind and
it requires GCC codebase experts to make any changes at all. This is
equivalent to letting any random coder make major changes to OpenSSL -- you
simply cannot afford to risk it.
so not doing anything and just spent t
Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter
how loud you yell. The Clang decision is far-reaching and gives numerous
advantages to the FreeBSD platform. It's also not been a waste of time;
you're implying that the FreeBSD devs have spent thousands of hours
hack
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Mark Felder wrote:
> Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter
> how loud you yell. The Clang decision is far-reaching and gives numerous
> advantages to the FreeBSD platform. It's also not been a waste of time;
> you're implying tha
Apple had no problem using a GPL v2 licensed compiler. It looks like they
have a huge problem using a GPL v3 licensed compiler.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Joe Gain wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Mark Felder wrote:
> > Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't hav
> pear-shaped.
Clang is a great set of compiler tools. If you are only a user, as you suggest,
as i suggested - i am a user of compiler. i do compile my own programs,
as well as programs from ports.
and i hate just telling something is white while it is at most grey.
_
Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter how
loud you yell.
gratification Seems like you ask for it.
The Clang decision is far-reaching and gives numerous
advantages to the FreeBSD platform.
for example what?
_
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
>> Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter
>> how loud you yell.
>
>
> gratification Seems like you ask for it.
>
This might be to gratuitous for most on the list, but diversity is almost
reason enough.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
> And the facts are: Lots of worktime were spent to make new C compiler from
> scratch and this resulted with thing 5 times larger, working at similar
> speed and producing similar code to GCC that is already considered bloat.
> The truth is
GPL runs contrary to the nature and intent of the BSD style license.
Free and open software benefits us all.
Getting rid of GPL is a good thing, and well worth any (debatable)
performance hits.
--
Dave Robison
Sales Solution Architect II
FIS Banking Solutions
510/621-2089 (w)
530/518-5194 (c)
5
gratification Seems like you ask for it.
This might be to gratuitous for most on the list, but diversity is almost
reason enough. And I don't mean this is some sort of fashion-way. I
think llvm and clang are interesting and serious projects.
never told otherwise.
i just try to do what
bloated gcc is just funny.
Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
unable to beat a new compiler that's had almost none...
none? so why it takes so much time to optimize?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
ht
GPL runs contrary to the nature and intent of the BSD style license.
Free and open software benefits us all.
True. GPL is definitely not FREE software. Freedom doesn't have different
types. Something is free or it is not free.
GPL software is not free as i can not do whatever i want with it.
OR better
than gcc, with potential for further improvement and
nice license, errors etc. Fair enough.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Why-Clang-tp5715861p5719484.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list arc
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Mon Jun 18 11:39:03 2012
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:37:55 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar
> To: Mark Felder
> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> >> I don't say clang is just ba
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:29:36 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
none? so why it takes so much time to optimize?
I don't think you understand how compilers work or the concept that new
programming methodologies have been developed over the last 25 years, so
this conversation is going to get s
That's interesting discussion.
I hit some cases where clang produced binaries were
clearly faster than those made with latest gcc. But it's far
from rule.
i did few more test on common unix tools, or my programs and results are
that by average there are just as fast within 1% range.
by avera
scratch and this resulted with thing 5 times larger,
*YOUR* measurement of sizes was faulty.
be more exact.
old bloated gcc is just funny.
You _do_ understand that they could not use -any- of the technology
implementations in GCC, that they had to redevelop everything from
scratch, right
none? so why it takes so much time to optimize?
I don't think you understand how compilers work or the concept that new
programming methodologies have been developed over the last 25 years, so this
conversation is going to get stuck in a loop.
Right. You just behave as defender of CLANG pe
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:30:23PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>scratch and this resulted with thing 5 times larger,
> >
> >*YOUR* measurement of sizes was faulty.
>
> be more exact.
I believe Robert Bonomi (you didn't include attribution for the previous
email, I notice) *was* more exact,
> GNU communist licence for C compiler is not bad at all (contrary to other
..^
..^
> software).
I & many others _Know_ what BSD & FSF licenses are.
Don't wwant repeated nonsense about 'communism'.
If you didn't subscribe
http://lists.freebsd.or
Sorry, my last header wrongly to Mark Felder, & could give
the wrong impression. I would like Wojciech Puchar (not Mark F.)
to stop banging on about 'GNU communist licence' etc.
Cheers,
Julian
--
Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com
Reply below not above
be more exact.
I believe Robert Bonomi (you didn't include attribution for the previous
email, I notice) *was* more exact, in that the rest of his email
explained what he thought of your glossing over the various factors that
might contribute to binary size.
I notice you ignored most of it in y
Sorry, my last header wrongly to Mark Felder, & could give
the wrong impression. I would like Wojciech Puchar (not Mark F.)
to stop banging on about 'GNU communist licence' etc.
because you don't like facts.
Sorry but i like only facts.
___
freebsd-qu
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Sorry, my last header wrongly to Mark Felder, & could give
the wrong impression. I would like Wojciech Puchar (not Mark F.)
to stop banging on about 'GNU communist licence' etc.
because you don't like facts.
No you don't. You like what YOU (and
No you don't. You like what YOU (and ONLY you) think of as facts (see below).
still not explained what is wrong in comparing end results of benchmark
and seeing that they are quite same. This is the only meaningful point for
me.
I live ideology for others.
Only facts? Well and good. Do you
from David Naylor:
> I am the one who sends these persistent messages. Some users of my packages
> reported that wine didn't run due to a clang compiled world. I never verified
> them (although I got multiple reports). With the updates to clang it may have
> also been corrected.
> I attributed
Thomas Mueller writes:
> Now how will I know whether GCC or Clang is the default compiler
> for building the world and kernel, and for ports?
My understanding is:
8.*
base - gcc
ports - gcc
9.0 (and possibly 9.*)
base - gcc
ports - clan
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>
> If you cannot see this - i cannot help you any more. sorry.
Your noise is no help. Use appropriate lists.
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
Cheers,
Julian
--
Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com
Reply below no
> Only facts? Well and good. Do you have any proof GNU is in any way
> connected to any communist movement?
Yes, see the Gnu Manifesto. Hint: it's named that way for a reason.
> Do you have any facts (NOT living in your head) GPLvX is in any way
> inspired/based on/even remotely connected to/ AN
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Robert Huff wrote:
>
> Thomas Mueller writes:
>
>> Now how will I know whether GCC or Clang is the default compiler
>> for building the world and kernel, and for ports?
>
> My understanding is:
>
> 8.*
> base - gcc
> ports - gcc
>
>
David Brodbeck said:
> Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
> unable to beat a new compiler that's had almost none...
Unfortunately this affirmation is blatantly false, recent gcc produce code
much faster than clang. I give here an example which i like, a monte carl
I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Michel Talon wrote:
> David Brodbeck said:
>> Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
>> unable to beat a n
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:14:25 -0500, Fred Morcos
wrote:
I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?
Yes, 4.2.1 is the latest we can use.
Also, I have no idea what version of Clang Michael is using on OSX. Tha
You should really configure your email client to attribute quoted
commentary properly (or, as a first step, at all).
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:51:00AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>be more exact.
> >
> >I believe Robert Bonomi (you didn't include attribution for the previous
> >email, I noti
On 19.06.2012 16:43, Michel Talon wrote:
David Brodbeck said:
Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
unable to beat a new compiler that's had almost none...
Unfortunately this affirmation is blatantly false, recent gcc produce code
much faster than clang. I give
lilas% clang -v
Apple clang version 2.1 (tags/Apple/clang-163.7.1) (based on LLVM 3.0svn)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.0
lilas% clang -O4 test.c -lf2c
lilas% time ./a.out
...
real 0m2.359s
user 0m2.341s
sys 0m0.003s
lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc -v
?
gcc version 4.6.1 (GCC)
lilas% /usr/local/bin
I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?
true.
anyway - can someone point me an article about explaining in human
language (contrary to lawyer language) why GPLv3 is more limiting in
reality over v2 .
Doe
programs like mencoder which require
the highest efficiency.
Really - just to throw in another opinion:
As an average user I don't see any performance impact on my clang-built
desktop-every-day-workstation. The only thing that is getting on my nerves
are some ports I frequently have to rebuild
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:54:45 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> anyway - can someone point me an article about explaining in human
> language (contrary to lawyer language) why GPLv3 is more limiting in
> reality over v2 .
>
> Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
often called a "viral license". Software linking against v3
libraries and so maybe programs compiled by a v3 compiler
will have - according to the license - to be released
>
> i wouldn't be surprised that FreeBSD team would decide to go back to gcc
> soon.
>
I would as one of the driving forces of the change was to replace GPL
licensed code in FreeBSD core with more permissive licensed code. This helps
to remove a massive legal encumberment for a lot of developers
> GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
> code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
> but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
"forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see
On 19 June 2012 12:58, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>>>
>>> Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
>>
>>
>> As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
>> often called a "viral license". Software linking against v3
>> libraries and so maybe programs compiled by a
I don't see much fruit coming out of that conversation anymore.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria)
wrote:
>
>> GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
>> code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
>> but not to be turned into closed
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>
> > GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
> > code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
> > but not to be turned into closed source products.
>
> What a lying sonofabitch.
By i
20.06.2012 00:06, Anonymous Remailer (austria) пишет:
>> GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
>> code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
>> but not to be turned into closed source products.
> What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is cal
20.06.2012 00:50, Polytropon пишет:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>>> GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
>>> code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
>>> but not to be turned into closed source products.
>
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:09:11 +0400, Евгений Лактанов wrote:
> 20.06.2012 00:50, Polytropon пишет:
> > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria)
> > wrote:
> >>> GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
> >>> code under those licenses: He wants it to
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:06:49PM +0200, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> >
> > GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
> > code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
> > but not to be turned into closed source products.
>
> What a lying sonofabitch. That
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
"forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see the difference. Open
your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...
Give him a break. His heart is in the right place, t
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
>>>
>>> Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
>>
>>
>> As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
>> often called a "viral license". Software linking against v3
>> libraries and so maybe programs com
Here[1] we can read a program linking agains a gpl v3 library should be released
under the gplv3 too. However, the only concern would be when the program is
implicitly linked against libgcc right? Well, there's even an
exception[2] for this.
this is exactly how i understand that. Anyway DragonFly
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Here[1] we can read a program linking agains a gpl v3 library should
be released
under the gplv3 too. However, the only concern would be when the
program is
implicitly linked against libgcc right? Well, there's even an
exception[2] for this.
this is exactly how i understa
The bad thing about GPLv3 is that if anyone commits any code under this
license into the tree vendors that use our code base for making their own
OSes will ditch FreeBSD as they can be sued by FSF. Juniper for example. It
would be wise to listen to their point of view on GPLv3.
not really un
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
The bad thing about GPLv3 is that if anyone commits any code under
this license into the tree vendors that use our code base for making
their own OSes will ditch FreeBSD as they can be sued by FSF. Juniper
for example. It would be wise to listen to their point of view on G
On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
BSDL in opposite is often criticized a "rape me license".
No, it is not, except perhaps by lying atheist Marxist bastards and his
religious adherents.
Please don't use "atheist" as a derogatory term. There are plenty of
capitalistic
I am also a newcomer and I agree with Stephen. But I guess the only
way is to simply ignore those who make such statements. I don't see
much benefit in arguing or reasoning with them.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Stephen Cook wrote:
> On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:04:47 +0200
Fred Morcos articulated:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Stephen Cook
> wrote:
> > On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> BSDL in opposite is often criticized a "rape me license".
> >>
> >> No, it is not, except perhaps by lyin
Really, this format of discussion is rather exception
than rule (from my experience).
Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me,
but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD
mailing list at all.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Why-
I'm a relative newcomer. Are the FreeBSD mailing lists always this flame-y? I
no. it is temporary.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-que
A somewhat haphazardly search of the postings in this forum would seem
to indicate that any post questioning the ethics or usefulness of
FreeBSD as compared to other operating systems that elicit six or more
strange but usefulness of FreeBSD wasn't questioned.
By the way Fred, please don't "T
Really, this format of discussion is rather exception
than rule (from my experience).
or rather - discussion is a rule :)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send
-war about system compilers - this is
the first one.
But I believe it is a good proof, that clang is a serious alternative to
gcc - else people would talk about "an interesting project" or something
like that.
Greetings
Peter.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.10457
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:48:15 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar articulated:
> > A somewhat haphazardly search of the postings in this forum would
> > seem to indicate that any post questioning the ethics or usefulness
> > of FreeBSD as compared to other operating systems that elicit six
> > or more
>
Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me,
but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD
mailing list at all.
Actually I can't remember any flame-war about system compilers - this is the
first one.
because such situation like now never happened - changing C compiler to
much worse bec
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Wojciech Puchar <
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
> Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me,
>>> but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD
>>> mailing list at all.
>>>
>> Actually I can't remember any flame-war about system compilers - this i
Polytropon wrote:
> I assume it's just an aspect of "still being too young" in
> regards of missing the difference between freedom and
> anarchy: the right to extend one's freedom is limited
> as soon as it limits the freedom of others. Maybe another
> aspect is the lack of discussion culture and t
They could be reduced by a combo. of eg:
- forcible unsub, & black list,
- block of anon. remailer domains
- making this list "subscribtion required before posting".
(which would make it harder for newbies fresh to
FreeBSD, but we need some
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
>>> Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me,
>>> but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD
>>> mailing list at all.
>>
>> Actually I can't remember any flame-war about system compilers - this is
>> the first one.
>
>
> because
it is only a proof that it was decided to put it as FreeBSD default
compiler.
Everything is said, explained and discusse why this decision is made.. So
Explanation about "the decision was already made" isn't explanation.
but i don't require any explanation. actually i don't require anything.
licensed gcc or b) A maintained and current GPLv3 gcc with GPLv3
licensed libc.
FreeBSD doesn't use GNU libc. am i missing something?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscri
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:42:34 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
Politics won over performance and quality. sad.
Performing compiler does not mean quality codebase.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
>> licensed gcc or b) A maintained and current GPLv3 gcc with GPLv3
>> licensed libc.
>
> FreeBSD doesn't use GNU libc. am i missing something?
>
No they don't :)
It is good that they don't. Why? Because of the changes from GPLv2
to GPLv3
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 06:45:16AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>>but not to be turned into closed source products.
> >>
> >>What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
> >>"forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see the difference. Open
> >>your motherfucking
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
