On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Wojciech Puchar <
wojtek@wojt...> wrote:

> Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc.  Is that in
>> dispute or something?  Or is this just repetition in case we
>> didn't hear you the first time?
>>
>
> just yesterday i've heard lots of otherwise claim.
>
>
>
>> Try thinking of the transition as a step back to take many steps forward.
>>
>
> What exactly step forward it means?
>

These are a few:

http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html#gcc

And the performance overall in clang is gaining more rapidly than gcc.  At
it's present rate, it won't be long until your are complaining for clang to
be the default if that is your primary objection.  Other factors have
pushed this change into motion sooner than perhaps desirable for some.
However, it is inevitable given the licensing barriers and the project's
long term goals.  Eliminating, or at least not being dependent on a GNU
toolchain.  GPL v3 brings with it a whole host problems such as:

http://www.tech-faq.com/linux-licensing-in-conflict-with-secure-boot-support.html

Those licensing issues may not be an issue for you, but they are for many
of the targets FreeBSD wishes to serve so keeping the base system as
unpolluted as possible is important.

--
Adam Vande More
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@free... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@free..."