Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Nov 2012 23:50 UTC, submitted by Joel Dahl
FreeBSD "I've made clang the default on x86 systems. There will probably be a few bumps as we work out the last kinks including a ABI issue for i386 system libraries, but the transition is expected to be fairly smooth for most users."
Thread beginning with comment 541347
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Awesome
by foldingstock on Thu 8th Nov 2012 04:14 UTC
foldingstock
Member since:
2008-10-30

This is the result of a lot of hard work from a lot of people. Awesome news!

Reply Score: 3

why?
by sergio on Thu 8th Nov 2012 04:27 in reply to "Awesome"
sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not a compiler expert, I'm only a GCC and FreeBSD user, so from a practical point of view... why do you consider Clang so awesome?

To me It always smelled like a political decision and not a technical one... Apple wanted a BSD-licensed compiler and not a GPL one so they spent zillons of dollars creating a new one and alienating the open source community.

But maybe I'm wrong and there are technical reasons to have Clang and dismiss good old GCC...

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: why?
by ideasman42 on Thu 8th Nov 2012 04:56 in reply to "why?"
ideasman42 Member since:
2007-07-20

clang is really very good compiler, though I think you're right - its a licensing issue, at the moment I wouldn't say clang is a better compiler.

For C, they both do well, for C++, clang is still not 100%.

And on both C/C++ clang misses OpenMP, which may be a big deal if you're using that a lot.

I do benchmarks once in a while and for me - (testing cycles-raytracer), clang is still slower then gcc (5-10%), and has been for over a year.

IMHO the advantage is more with is ability to integrate with IDE's and be used as a library. - clang/python for example is pretty nice, though focused on IDE's rather then giving you access to all info.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: why?
by kwan_e on Thu 8th Nov 2012 04:59 in reply to "why?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

But maybe I'm wrong and there are technical reasons to have Clang and dismiss good old GCC...


Outside of licensing issues, it is the fact that LLVM is designed to have better support for creating tooling extensions. LLVM is highly modularized and pluggable.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: why?
by demetrioussharpe on Thu 8th Nov 2012 13:28 in reply to "why?"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

To me It always smelled like a political decision and not a technical one... Apple wanted a BSD-licensed compiler and not a GPL one so they spent zillons of dollars creating a new one and alienating the open source community.


You think Apple is the only organization that doesn't want a GPL licensed compiler? Stop & ask yourself why a (Free|Net|Open|Dragonfly|PC)-BSD based OS wouldn't want a BSD licensed compiler. Those guys don't just use BSD-licensed software on a whim. They believe in that model of software licensing & I highly doubt that they'd want to be at the mercy of the GPL license model --which changes on a whim, the same way that GPL code changes on a whim.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: why?
by lucas_maximus on Fri 9th Nov 2012 14:25 in reply to "why?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Other than licensing issues. GCC has become increasingly buggy with each release.

I have no concrete data, but I do know a few people who make ports for OpenBSD and I have heard some noise from their direction about how it was getting worse.

Edited 2012-11-09 14:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2