Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:45:58 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clang - what is the story? Message-ID: <20120122074558.GA22918@hemlock.hydra> In-Reply-To: <4F1BB640.2050707@herveybayaustralia.com.au> References: <4F1AAB66.5070100@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20120121133506.7bcfaec9@gumby.homeunix.com> <20120121154313.53d3fec6@gumby.homeunix.com> <20120122070205.GA13081@hemlock.hydra> <4F1BB640.2050707@herveybayaustralia.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 05:09:52PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: > On 01/22/12 17:02, Chad Perrin wrote: > >On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 03:43:13PM +0000, RW wrote: > >>I was just wondering what would have happened if Apple hadn't backed > >>clang/LLVM as BSD licensed projects. Was there a plan B (other than > >>gcc 4.2.1) or did Apple save the *BSD world? > >The backup plan was probably PCC. > Whats actually surprising is that it wasn't used as plan A (I just > looked it up); It then would have come full circle ;) A couple years ago, it looked like a race between PCC and TenDRA, but Clang seemed to just come out of nowhere and steal all the attention. All three of them had a lot to recommend them, but then the TenDRA modernization project evaporated and everybody jumped on the Clang wagon. At least, that's how it looked to me. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120122074558.GA22918>