Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:45:26 +1000
From:      Da Rock <>
Subject:   Re: Clang - what is the story?
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 01/22/12 02:39, David Jackson wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Da Rock<
>>  wrote:
>> I've been seeing a lot of hoorays and pats on the back and a general
>> feeling satisfaction in being able to use clang to compile FreeBSD and
>> ports. The only reason I can see from searching is a need to get away from
>> gcc (which is tried and tested since the beginning of time) which is now
>> apparently GPLv3.
>> Can someone offer some clarity as to the importance of this? I'm guessing
>> the that stepping away from GPL is generally a good thing, especially if
>> there is something similar with similar license structure to BSD; I just
>> can't understand the rush of it.
>> Even under GPL anything built using gcc can be licensed as you like, so I
>> doubt it could be that.
>> I'm not skeptical, just curious- trying to get my head around some of the
>> dev side of things :)
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> mailing list
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-**
> The reasons for Clang are not just for the GPLv3 issue, but Clang is
> architecturally superior in many ways over GCC, Clang was designed from the
> ground up to learn from GCCs mistakes and to be a better C compiler. One of
> the Clang's features is better debugging and a more modular architecture
> that is easier to develop and extend. GCC has often been criticised for its
> monolithic and inflexible structure that has often hindered implementing
> new features and functionality. One of the advantages of Clang is that it
> can be more easily plugged into IDEs for integrated debugging.
> You can read all about the many advantages and innovations of clang and how
> it exceeds GCC here:
That was the first place I looked to see if anything stood out as the 
reason why, and I couldn't quite see apart from license.

Apparently I had missed some aspects in the license.... Thanks for the 
answers guys. Legal issues can be real tricky sometimes can't they? I 
definitely would have missed that about the libraries- its obvious now :)

That also explains the issues with other compilers (especially ones on 
other platforms).


Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>