Re: Why Clang
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 ONLY you) think of as facts (see below). Sorry but i like only facts. Only facts? Well and good. Do you have any proof GNU is in any way connected to any communist movement? Do you have any facts (NOT living in your head) GPLvX is in any way inspired/based on/even remotely connected to/ ANY communist movement/party/literature? And PLEASE don't push on us all that trash like obligation to provide sorces==communism. GPLvX (for any X) do not forbid to make profit out of your software. It just stands again closing of the sources and therefore against infringing of the (totally democratic) human right of having the (vital for somebody) information. So: since you are against GPL means you are communist. Perhaps even stalinist. Period. P.S. If needs be I could prove an opposite. And be quite a bit meaner. P.P.S. Now PLEASE take any moral/political/religious garbage out of this mailing list to chat, advocacy or any other non-technical forum. GPL-vs-BSD, Linux-vs-Windows-vs-BSD-vs-whatever else, Christianity-vs-Buddhism and so on does not belong here. Vladimir. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 have any proof GNU is in any way connected to any communist movement? Yes. Exactly the same targets and understanding of freedom. Just Richard Stallman is (fortunately) limited mostly to computing. If you cannot see this - i cannot help you any more. sorry. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Munin crashing : p5-Net-Server
Hi, After a recent upgrade to p5-Net-Server-2.005 on various boxes, I'm finding that munin-node is going down regularly. (Multiple machines, looks to be affected on FreeBSD8.2 and FreeBSD8.3 REL, but not 9.0 machines) It looks related to trying to start on an ipv6 interface ( which is not there) and i suspect this is a default from the perl Net-Server module rather than munin? Jun 19 00:00:01 ifdnrg20 newsyslog[24331]: logfile turned over Pid_file created by this same process. Doing nothing. 2012/06/19-00:00:02 Munin::Node::Server (type Net::Server::Fork) starting! pid(50897) sysctl: unknown oid 'net.ipv6.bindv6only' Resolved [*]:4949 to [::]:4949, IPv6 Resolved [*]:4949 to [0.0.0.0]:4949, IPv4 Binding open file descriptors 2012/06/19-00:00:02 Bad file descriptor at line 298 in file /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.4/Net/Server.pm 2012/06/19-00:00:02 Server closing! shutdown() on unopened socket GEN0 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.12.4/mach/IO/Socket.pm line 295. shutdown() on unopened socket GEN1 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.12.4/mach/IO/Socket.pm line 295. Paul. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [munin-users] Munin crashing : p5-Net-Server
On 2012-06-19T08:17:09+0100, Paul Macdonald p...@ifdnrg.com wrote: After a recent upgrade to p5-Net-Server-2.005 on various boxes, I'm finding that munin-node is going down regularly. (Multiple machines, looks to be affected on FreeBSD8.2 and FreeBSD8.3 REL, but not 9.0 machines) This is due to newsyslog sending a signal to munin-node (notice the first line of the log). As a workaround, if you comment the munin-node line in /etc/newsyslog.conf, munin-node will stay running, but you'll have to figure out another way to rotate the logs, if you care about rotating those logs. This is probably a bug somewhere. I haven't debugged further than this due to lack of time, but maybe this will help you determine the root cause, and a fix. It looks related to trying to start on an ipv6 interface ( which is not there) and i suspect this is a default from the perl Net-Server module rather than munin? Jun 19 00:00:01 ifdnrg20 newsyslog[24331]: logfile turned over Pid_file created by this same process. Doing nothing. 2012/06/19-00:00:02 Munin::Node::Server (type Net::Server::Fork) starting! pid(50897) sysctl: unknown oid 'net.ipv6.bindv6only' Resolved [*]:4949 to [::]:4949, IPv6 Resolved [*]:4949 to [0.0.0.0]:4949, IPv4 Binding open file descriptors 2012/06/19-00:00:02 Bad file descriptor at line 298 in file /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.4/Net/Server.pm 2012/06/19-00:00:02 Server closing! shutdown() on unopened socket GEN0 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.12.4/mach/IO/Socket.pm line 295. shutdown() on unopened socket GEN1 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.12.4/mach/IO/Socket.pm line 295. Paul. -- Kenyon Ralph signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: urtw0 wireless device on FreeBSD problems
On 06/18/2012 09:07 PM, Antonio Olivares wrote: Dear Folks, ... Is there a place where the panics/oops are saved to retrieve them and cut + paste them here? /var/log/, /tmp/ ? If you have set dumpdev in rc.conf to the location of a swap device (or AUTO to have it pick one), the core dump (and a neat automated analysis, on 8.x and later) should end up in /var/crash. Keep in mind that coredumps can be as large as the machine's installed RAM, so you will probably want at least that much swap and disk to hold it. Also, there may still be some issues with obtaining consistent coredumps on multiprocessor machines, but I got rid of the miscreant hardware before I could test that claim on anything newer than 8.1. You can find more comprehensive information in the handbook[1]. [1] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/developers-handbook/kerneldebug.html -- Fuzzy love, -CyberLeo Technical Administrator CyberLeo.Net Webhosting http://www.CyberLeo.Net cyber...@cyberleo.net Furry Peace! - http://.fur.com/peace/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang?
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 the problem to clang miscompiling a library in base used by wine and Volodymyr, I think, confirms this: I only have other people's experience on this issue, need to test this, but want to keep a GCC-compiled world for now, at least for a production system. This would not stop me from trying Clang on an experimental/testing installation, such as HEAD, where the basic intent is development. From Volodymyr Kostyrko: 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. I guess that's why I want to keep at least one GCC-compiled world for now. Like it or not, Linux is by far the leading open-source OS, and most of the ports are originally developed with mainly Linux in mind. Linux software development is GCC-centric, I don't know if there is any work with Clang in Linux. Now how will I know whether GCC or Clang is the default compiler for building the world and kernel, and for ports? Not that I want to avoid Clang, just don't want to be caught by surprise. Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang?
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 - clang (with the caveat some ports need either any gcc or a specific version) CURRENT base - as of this writing, clang (look for announcement in current@ or hackers@) ports - clang, as above though with a shorter list (Someone please correct me if they have more accurate information.) Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 not above, cumulative like a play script, indent with . Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. Mail from @yahoo dumped @berklix. http://berklix.org/yahoo/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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/ ANY communist movement/party/literature? Yes, see above. Stallman is a self-described atheist Marxist. information. So: since you are against GPL means you are communist. Perhaps even stalinist. Period. No, but that is a good example of a Marxist/Stalinist tactic. Lies, lies, and more lies. The truth is Stallman is to software what Stalin was to people. You must do everything according to his will or you will be branded an enemy of the people. Sick, because in truth Stallman is an enemy of the people. He's the programming equivalent of a televangelist, making a religion out of his sick communist ideals and at the expense of honest people who sell write and sell software. He wants to drive them out of business but only so he can create more power and fame by making more groupies. Sick! P.S. If needs be I could prove an opposite. And be quite a bit meaner. P.P.S. Now PLEASE take any moral/political/religious garbage out of this mailing list to chat, advocacy or any other non-technical forum. Morality does have a place in software and everywhere else in life. GPL-vs-BSD, Linux-vs-Windows-vs-BSD-vs-whatever else, Christianity-vs-Buddhism and so on does not belong here. But it is Free BSD so freedom needs to be understood. GPL is wrong, it's not free and it doesn't belong in FreeBSD. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang?
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Robert Huff roberth...@rcn.com 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 9.0 (and possibly 9.*) base - gcc ports - clang (with the caveat some ports need either any gcc or a specific version) I can't confirm this other than to say, that I compile stable 9 base (kernel + world) using clang and ports using gcc. I have to compile base using WERROR= and NO_WERROR= settings in make.conf so that the compilation doesn't halt on error messages. Maybe this is no longer required. This is as per wiki, though admittedly, as per wiki a couple of months ago. I can imagine that the problem will be compiling ports with clang. Some of the gcc code is not correct as per specification. There's a list somewhere of currently compilable ports using clang. CURRENT base - as of this writing, clang (look for announcement in current@ or hackers@) ports - clang, as above though with a shorter list (Someone please correct me if they have more accurate information.) Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- joe gain jacob-burckhardt-str. 16 78464 konstanz germany +49 (0)7531 60389 (...otherwise in ???) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
rm returns 0 although directory didn't exist and wasn't deleted ?
I've stumbled upon this *so weird* behaviour. # ls -la /var/tmp/stunnel/ ls: /var/tmp/stunnel/: No such file or directory # rm -Rf /var/tmp/stunnel/ # echo $? 0 Anyone knows if that's intended ? FreeBSD pf2.[snip].com 8.3-STABLE FreeBSD 8.3-STABLE #0: Tue Jun 19 10:45:31 CEST 2012 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: rm returns 0 although directory didn't exist and wasn't deleted ?
On 06/19/2012 03:37 PM, Damien Fleuriot wrote: I've stumbled upon this *so weird* behaviour. # ls -la /var/tmp/stunnel/ ls: /var/tmp/stunnel/: No such file or directory # rm -Rf /var/tmp/stunnel/ # echo $? 0 Anyone knows if that's intended ? rm without -f return 1 in this case ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: rm returns 0 although directory didn't exist and wasn't deleted ?
You used -f which means rm will not complain if a file or directory cannot be deleted (or does not exist in the first place). On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Damien Fleuriot m...@my.gd wrote: I've stumbled upon this *so weird* behaviour. # ls -la /var/tmp/stunnel/ ls: /var/tmp/stunnel/: No such file or directory # rm -Rf /var/tmp/stunnel/ # echo $? 0 Anyone knows if that's intended ? FreeBSD pf2.[snip].com 8.3-STABLE FreeBSD 8.3-STABLE #0: Tue Jun 19 10:45:31 CEST 2012 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: rm returns 0 although directory didn't exist and wasn't deleted ?
I always assumed -f would only force removal, not modify the exit code. No bug then, working as intended, all good. Cheers On 6/19/12 3:43 PM, Fred Morcos wrote: You used -f which means rm will not complain if a file or directory cannot be deleted (or does not exist in the first place). On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Damien Fleuriot m...@my.gd wrote: I've stumbled upon this *so weird* behaviour. # ls -la /var/tmp/stunnel/ ls: /var/tmp/stunnel/: No such file or directory # rm -Rf /var/tmp/stunnel/ # echo $? 0 Anyone knows if that's intended ? FreeBSD pf2.[snip].com 8.3-STABLE FreeBSD 8.3-STABLE #0: Tue Jun 19 10:45:31 CEST 2012 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: rm returns 0 although directory didn't exist and wasn't deleted ?
The man page [1] explicitly states that if the file doesn't exist, -f will not show an error message nor alter the exit code. -f Attempt to remove the files without prompting for confirmation, regardless of the file's permissions. If the file does not exist, do not display a diagnostic message or modify the exit status to reflect an error. The -f option overrides any previous -i options. [1] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=rmapropos=0sektion=0manpath=FreeBSD+9.0-RELEASEarch=defaultformat=html On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Damien Fleuriot m...@my.gd wrote: I always assumed -f would only force removal, not modify the exit code. No bug then, working as intended, all good. Cheers On 6/19/12 3:43 PM, Fred Morcos wrote: You used -f which means rm will not complain if a file or directory cannot be deleted (or does not exist in the first place). On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Damien Fleuriot m...@my.gd wrote: I've stumbled upon this *so weird* behaviour. # ls -la /var/tmp/stunnel/ ls: /var/tmp/stunnel/: No such file or directory # rm -Rf /var/tmp/stunnel/ # echo $? 0 Anyone knows if that's intended ? FreeBSD pf2.[snip].com 8.3-STABLE FreeBSD 8.3-STABLE #0: Tue Jun 19 10:45:31 CEST 2012 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 carlo computation for a spin lattice. Everything runs on my macbook. 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 ... real0m2.359s user0m2.341s sys 0m0.003s lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc -v … gcc version 4.6.1 (GCC) lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc -O3 test.c -lf2c lilas% time ./a.out … real0m1.241s user0m1.234s sys 0m0.003s So gcc gives an executable running twice faster than clang, basically, when both compilers are run at maximal optimization. To show the effectiveness of the optimizer, here is the running time without any optimization: lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc test.c -lf2c lilas% time ./a.out … real0m6.895s user0m6.889s sys 0m0.005s What this demonstrates is that for programs which do real computations, optimization is *very* important, and gcc is now very good (i have not shown the numbers but they match the Intel compiler) while clang is at the level gcc was ten years ago. So i fully agree with Wojciech Puchar, the move to clang is only driven by anti GPL propaganda which is frankly completely stupid, since in any events, gcc does not contaminate the binaries it produces (except when using contaminated accompanying libraries e.g. for C++). Of course, when compiling FreeBSD kernel or similar programs which do little computation there is no harm using clang. I suspect that the price is higher for programs like mencoder which require the highest efficiency. I will not comment on the better error messages coming from clang, this could be a more serious argument. -- Michel Talon ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr
Re: Why Clang
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 ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr 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 here an example which i like, a monte carlo computation for a spin lattice. Everything runs on my macbook. 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/gcc -O3 test.c -lf2c lilas% time ./a.out … real 0m1.241s user 0m1.234s sys 0m0.003s So gcc gives an executable running twice faster than clang, basically, when both compilers are run at maximal optimization. To show the effectiveness of the optimizer, here is the running time without any optimization: lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc test.c -lf2c lilas% time ./a.out … real 0m6.895s user 0m6.889s sys 0m0.005s What this demonstrates is that for programs which do real computations, optimization is *very* important, and gcc is now very good (i have not shown the numbers but they match the Intel compiler) while clang is at the level gcc was ten years ago. So i fully agree with Wojciech Puchar, the move to clang is only driven by anti GPL propaganda which is frankly completely stupid, since in any events, gcc does not contaminate the binaries it produces (except when using contaminated accompanying libraries e.g. for C++). Of course, when compiling FreeBSD kernel or similar programs which do little computation there is no harm using clang. I suspect that the price is higher for programs like mencoder which require the highest efficiency. I will not comment on the better error messages coming from clang, this could be a more serious argument. -- Michel Talon ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:14:25 -0500, Fred Morcos fred.mor...@gmail.com 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. That tag means nothing to me; for all I know that really could be back in Clang 2.1 days which makes this exercise pointless. We need to be comparing at a minimum the very latest Clang to GCC 4.2.1. Further benchmarks against the latest GCC is welcome, but we should care more about not having a huge performance regression in comparison to what GCC 4.2.1 already provides us. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 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 your response, too. or maybe missed. So please tell me finally what is wrong in measuring speed by measuring time of execution doing same things? What i should measure? time in heavens? He didn't say anything about your measurement of time being faulty. He said your measurement of size was faulty. I can generally puzzle out what caused various GCC warning and error messages when trying to compile my own code, given comparison of what's strange but i don't have a problem - and i always set -Wall when using gcc as 99% of warnings are actually errors. I guess you're either some kind of rare genius or suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Everyone I've encountered with something to say about warning and error reporting with regard to Clang vs. GCC has remarked about how much nicer it is with Clang. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 here an example which i like, a monte carlo computation for a spin lattice. Everything runs on my macbook. 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 ... real0m2.359s user0m2.341s sys 0m0.003s lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc -v … gcc version 4.6.1 (GCC) lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc -O3 test.c -lf2c lilas% time ./a.out … real0m1.241s user0m1.234s sys 0m0.003s So gcc gives an executable running twice faster than clang, basically, when both compilers are run at maximal optimization. To show the effectiveness of the optimizer, here is the running time without any optimization: lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc test.c -lf2c lilas% time ./a.out … real0m6.895s user0m6.889s sys 0m0.005s What this demonstrates is that for programs which do real computations, optimization is *very* important, and gcc is now very good (i have not shown the numbers but they match the Intel compiler) while clang is at the level gcc was ten years ago. So i fully agree with Wojciech Puchar, the move to clang is only driven by anti GPL propaganda which is frankly completely stupid, since in any events, gcc does not contaminate the binaries it produces (except when using contaminated accompanying libraries e.g. for C++). Of course, when compiling FreeBSD kernel or similar programs which do little computation there is no harm using clang. I suspect that the price is higher for 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 with gcc. It would be nice if the porting team could set up some automagic for that. There seems to be no harm in running a mixed clang/gcc built userland. Some members of this list seem to fear some kind of communist infiltration by gcc - I hope this is no serious issue, is it? I will not comment on the better error messages coming from clang, this could be a more serious argument. I don't know what they mean, but they really do look good :-) Greetings Peter -- Michel Talon ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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/gcc -O3 test.c -lf2c lilas% time ./a.out ? real 0m1.241s user 0m1.234s sys 0m0.003s So gcc actually improved. Can you compare the execution speed of latest gcc vs. latest clang. thank you i compared FReeBSD 9 supplied gcc with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 . Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 with gcc. every time anyone will point a fact about clang not being really the best - some fanatics will reply by going off topic, or worse (fortunately not you) - by aggression, attack or lies. Can you finally behave like normal intelligent people or clang-religion fanatics?! facts are important. ONLY FACTS, unless you want to turn whole FreeBSD project from technical quality to useless propaganda. Please don't do it, as FreeBSD is the only really usable unix remaining! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Question about GEOM_ELI` root partition automount [COPY from i...@rdmitry.name]
* [COPY from i...@rdmitry.name]*
{ # (Russian lang, ORIGINAL)
Имеется::
1) Загружаемая некриптованная партиция /boot со скриптами ядра
9.0-release и самим ядром;
2) Криптованная только файл-ключом (ключ лежит сейчас в (1)/boot )
рутовая партиция со всем своим содержимым.
Проблема:
При загрузке криптованая партиция сама монтируется, но ключ открытым
лежит. Нужно именно по ключу, не по паролю (площадка провайдера).
Надо:
Как - то сделать так, что бы ключ был скрыт, не очевиден.
Думаю, можно какой-то из исходников изменить, дописать часть кода,
например у /boot/loader , так, что бы он сам создавал временно файл
ключика, а после монтирования ключик затирал секурно (dd в файл ключа).
Я на си ещё не програмил, сответственно и вопрос: хотя бы какой файл в
исходниках ковырять, в какой части файла? Может быть код даже подскажите?
P.S. Я такую штуку для линукса уже придумал и сделал, но там проще, т.к.
initrd-image можно разархивировать и легко корректировать.
}
{ # (ENG, translated not so good)
What we have now (FreeBSD 9.0-release):
1) /boot partition, uncrypted, with it`s boot scripts, kernel and so on;
2) crypted root partition (geli init -s 4096 -P -K /root/keyfile
/dev/adXX), without password but with key; that partition have all its
freebsd content.
The keyfile located now in (1)/boot.
The problem need to solve:
Need have end system, when keyfile when boot will be created
automatically, and erased securelly just after root crypto` partition
mounts (by dd with of=keyfile, for example)
That need to do because freebsd have remote hosting.
Needs:
To make key not (at least EASELY!) catched by unautorised personnel, and
noone cat pass password there after reboot or power fail/restore cases.
Maby you can give me tip, what pard of src (and maby how, maby
/boot/loader src) need to change?
P.S. I solve same with linux box, but there i can extract already
working initrd.img, change in by adding binary program which make their
work, and make new initrd.img
}
I hope, you will can help me with it, thanks in advance!
btw i don`t power user oc C language :)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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? 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 as v3 too. Code that is v3 once cannot become something different (either v2, BSDL or closed). GPLv2 does have fewer restrictions, emphasizing the freedom of the developer: It's not okay to turn v2 programs into closed source. However, it is okay to make derivates from it as long as the derivates are also published (contributed back). GPLv3 also has this requirement. 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. A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will typically use the BSD license which is more free. BSDL in opposite is often criticized a rape me license. It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code can be a key component in a proprietary closed source product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance), and nobody will find out about that fact. WP has a nice comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open_source_software_licenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License All those licenses do _not_ allow to steal copyright! -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Question about GEOM_ELI` root partition automount
{ # (Russian lang, ORIGINAL)
Имеется::
1) Загружаемая некриптованная партиция /boot со скриптами ядра
9.0-release и самим ядром;
2) Криптованная только файл-ключом (ключ лежит сейчас в (1)/boot )
рутовая партиция со всем своим содержимым.
Проблема:
При загрузке криптованая партиция сама монтируется, но ключ открытым
лежит. Нужно именно по ключу, не по паролю (площадка провайдера).
Надо:
Как - то сделать так, что бы ключ был скрыт, не очевиден.
Думаю, можно какой-то из исходников изменить, дописать часть кода,
например у /boot/loader , так, что бы он сам создавал временно файл
ключика, а после монтирования ключик затирал секурно (dd в файл ключа).
Я на си ещё не програмил, сответственно и вопрос: хотя бы какой файл в
исходниках ковырять, в какой части файла? Может быть код даже подскажите?
P.S. Я такую штуку для линукса уже придумал и сделал, но там проще, т.к.
initrd-image можно разархивировать и легко корректировать.
}
{ # (ENG, translated not so good)
What we have now (FreeBSD 9.0-release):
1) /boot partition, uncrypted, with it`s boot scripts, kernel and so on;
2) crypted root partition (geli init -s 4096 -P -K /root/keyfile
/dev/adXX), without password but with key; that partition have all its
freebsd content.
The keyfile located now in (1)/boot.
The problem need to solve:
Need have end system, when keyfile when boot will be created
automatically, and erased securelly just after root crypto` partition
mounts (by dd with of=keyfile, for example)
That need to do because freebsd have remote hosting.
Needs:
To make key not (at least EASELY!) catched by unautorised personnel, and
noone cat pass password there after reboot or power fail/restore cases.
Maby you can give me tip, what pard of src (and maby how, maby
/boot/loader src) need to change?
P.S. I solve same with linux box, but there i can extract already
working initrd.img, change in by adding binary program which make their
work, and make new initrd.img
}
I hope, you will can help me with it, thanks in advance!
btw i don`t power user oc C language :)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 as v3 too. This word: MAYBE is most crucial here. wouldn't it be just simplest solution to ask GNU leader for clearing it out? i wouldn't be surprised that FreeBSD team would decide to go back to gcc soon. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Question about GEOM_ELI` root partition automount
The problem need to solve: Need have end system, when keyfile when boot will be created automatically, and erased securelly just after root crypto` partition mounts (by dd with of=keyfile, for example) That need to do because freebsd have remote hosting. Needs: To make key not (at least EASELY!) catched by unautorised personnel, and noone cat pass password there after reboot or power fail/restore cases. Maby you can give me tip, what pard of src (and maby how, maby /boot/loader src) need to change? how do you want to enter that key? i would make system bootable and ssh-able but with secure data unmounted and very small malloc based md device created. then you upload keyfile to it, run geli to attach encrypted device, overwrite md device and destroy md device. if i understand correctly. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
RE: Why Clang
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 who no longer have to worry how their BSD licensed code has to be treated if its compiled thru a GPL compiler. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 the difference. Open your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball... A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will typically use the BSD license which is more free. No, it's just plain free. 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. It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code can be a key component in a proprietary closed source product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance), and nobody will find out about that fact. Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is about letting them do what /they/ want. Let's see if you can guess which one of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing people to do what you want. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
On 19 June 2012 12:58, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl 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 v3 compiler will have - according to the license - to be released as v3 too. This word: MAYBE is most crucial here. This is false: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html i wouldn't be surprised that FreeBSD team would decide to go back to gcc soon. Unlikely. clang is much better on all the other fronts. Even if clang produces slightly slower code for math heavy code for now we don't care that much. The kernel does not spend much time in compute heavy code. :) -- Eitan Adler ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
I don't see much fruit coming out of that conversation anymore. On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at 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 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... A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will typically use the BSD license which is more free. No, it's just plain free. 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. It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code can be a key component in a proprietary closed source product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance), and nobody will find out about that fact. Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is about letting them do what /they/ want. Let's see if you can guess which one of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing people to do what you want. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: rm returns 0 although directory didn't exist and wasn't deleted ?
Damien Fleuriot m...@my.gd wrote: I've stumbled upon this *so weird* behaviour. # ls -la /var/tmp/stunnel/ ls: /var/tmp/stunnel/: No such file or directory # rm -Rf /var/tmp/stunnel/ # echo $? 0 Anyone knows if that's intended ? yes. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 insulting you think your arguments get any better? Sorry, it's not the case. That is not called freedom. That is called forcible, viral open source. That's what I initially called viral license (or which, to be precise, is a phrase someone else invented, and which I just repeated). A developer is always the key person to decide what he will do with his source code. Giving it for free WITH NO SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS is a very generous act. (Note that this act does not mean he gives up copyright, the attribution that _he_ was the creator of the code!) If a developer wants to donate his work to the public, but does not want others to make money with his work, he will probably choose the GPL to release the source code. Others are allowed to modify it, to create derivate works and even use it in their products, as long as the requirement (which you may validly see as a restriction!) of contribution back is met. A much more strict requirement seems to be in the GPLv3 which limits those who take the open source. The aspect of being viral includes that the source will not be turned into closed source. The most negative effect is that GPLv3 licensed components may have side effects of non-GLPv3 licensed code. This is something worth seeing critically. I think we can all see the difference. Open your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball... All those insults fly back to you and therefore apply to you. It makes all your argumentation (which may be valid) futile. In fact, that kind of acting is a typical means of communist dictatures - using insulting language to actually avoid any discussion and instead strengthen the means of oppression! You should learn some history. And maybe calm down, as the hatred you're spreading is really unpleasant. A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will typically use the BSD license which is more free. No, it's just plain free. Among the many licenses, the BSD license seems to be the most free license (or, the only free license, which is a valid point of view), as it explicitely allows things that the GPL does not. Of course, there are different interpretations if this is a good or a bad thing. For a system like FreeBSD that wants to offer a free system (in the widest sense), GPLv3 system components (such as compilers) could be a no-go. 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. By no, except you have actually agreed that the statement is true, even if you tried to deny it. Again, please try to have some culture in discussion. Maybe you should also read Marx. :-) It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code can be a key component in a proprietary closed source product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance), and nobody will find out about that fact. Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is about letting them do what /they/ want. Licensing is about choosing - a main criteria of a free society. A developer is free to even keep his sources closed, to release them as GPL v2 or v3, or as BSDL (or choose from other licenses, or even write his own). In the next step, licenses have impact on how sources can be used. As I did explain, GPLv3 code may be problematic in this regards in certain environments. It may perfectly fit in others. As long as there's an agreement of the users of such source to accept the license, it's okay. What's _not_ okay is when the license forces you to do something you don't want to do, or simply can't do. Let's see if you can guess which one of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing people to do what you want. If people don't do what I want, they're limiting my freedom. :-) Seriously, you should pay more attention to what I wrote. Even though English is not my native language, I try to be as precise as possible, and if I can't do that (because a lack of knowledge, because of assumptions or deduction), I make clear that it is not the case. Hint: Read carefully: I think, as far as I know or similar formulas are an indicator. Finally: Insulting me is not a way to go. It shows that you don't value the freedom of speech. Of course you are free to say whatever you want. But as soon as you insult people and limit their freedom, maybe even their right (moral right, not law) to have a polite and normal discussion on this list, you're not any better than the communists you hate that much. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi
Re: Why Clang
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 called forcible, viral open source. I think we can all see the difference. Open your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball... A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will typically use the BSD license which is more free. No, it's just plain free. 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. It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code can be a key component in a proprietary closed source product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance), and nobody will find out about that fact. Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is about letting them do what /they/ want. Let's see if you can guess which one of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing people to do what you want. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org M, all that rage, all that conspiracy crap and especially the hypocrisy! I love it, this is here, my friends, a daily dose of quality entertainment. P.S. Topic is pretty much dead ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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. What a lying sonofabitch. By insulting you think your arguments get any better? Sorry, it's not the case. That is not called freedom. That is called forcible, viral open source. That's what I initially called viral license (or which, to be precise, is a phrase someone else invented, and which I just repeated). A developer is always the key person to decide what he will do with his source code. Giving it for free WITH NO SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS is a very generous act. (Note that this act does not mean he gives up copyright, the attribution that _he_ was the creator of the code!) If a developer wants to donate his work to the public, but does not want others to make money with his work, he will probably choose the GPL to release the source code. Others are allowed to modify it, to create derivate works and even use it in their products, as long as the requirement (which you may validly see as a restriction!) of contribution back is met. A much more strict requirement seems to be in the GPLv3 which limits those who take the open source. The aspect of being viral includes that the source will not be turned into closed source. The most negative effect is that GPLv3 licensed components may have side effects of non-GLPv3 licensed code. This is something worth seeing critically. I think we can all see the difference. Open your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball... All those insults fly back to you and therefore apply to you. It makes all your argumentation (which may be valid) futile. In fact, that kind of acting is a typical means of communist dictatures - using insulting language to actually avoid any discussion and instead strengthen the means of oppression! You should learn some history. And maybe calm down, as the hatred you're spreading is really unpleasant. A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will typically use the BSD license which is more free. No, it's just plain free. Among the many licenses, the BSD license seems to be the most free license (or, the only free license, which is a valid point of view), as it explicitely allows things that the GPL does not. Of course, there are different interpretations if this is a good or a bad thing. For a system like FreeBSD that wants to offer a free system (in the widest sense), GPLv3 system components (such as compilers) could be a no-go. 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. By no, except you have actually agreed that the statement is true, even if you tried to deny it. Again, please try to have some culture in discussion. Maybe you should also read Marx. :-) It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code can be a key component in a proprietary closed source product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance), and nobody will find out about that fact. Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is about letting them do what /they/ want. Licensing is about choosing - a main criteria of a free society. A developer is free to even keep his sources closed, to release them as GPL v2 or v3, or as BSDL (or choose from other licenses, or even write his own). In the next step, licenses have impact on how sources can be used. As I did explain, GPLv3 code may be problematic in this regards in certain environments. It may perfectly fit in others. As long as there's an agreement of the users of such source to accept the license, it's okay. What's _not_ okay is when the license forces you to do something you don't want to do, or simply can't do. Let's see if you can guess which one of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing people to do what you want. If people don't do what I want, they're limiting my freedom. :-) Seriously, you should pay more attention to what I wrote. Even though English is not my native language, I try to be as precise as possible, and if I can't do that (because a lack of knowledge, because of assumptions or deduction), I make clear that it is not the case. Hint: Read carefully: I think, as far as I know or similar formulas are an indicator. Finally: Insulting me is not a way to go. It shows that you don't value the freedom of speech. Of course you are free to say whatever you want. But as soon as you insult people and limit their freedom, maybe even their right (moral right, not law) to have a polite and normal discussion on this list, you're not any better than the communists you hate that much. People
Re: Why Clang
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 be free for use, but not to be turned into closed source products. What a lying sonofabitch. By insulting you think your arguments get any better? Sorry, it's not the case. That is not called freedom. That is called forcible, viral open source. That's what I initially called viral license (or which, to be precise, is a phrase someone else invented, and which I just repeated). A developer is always the key person to decide what he will do with his source code. Giving it for free WITH NO SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS is a very generous act. (Note that this act does not mean he gives up copyright, the attribution that _he_ was the creator of the code!) If a developer wants to donate his work to the public, but does not want others to make money with his work, he will probably choose the GPL to release the source code. Others are allowed to modify it, to create derivate works and even use it in their products, as long as the requirement (which you may validly see as a restriction!) of contribution back is met. A much more strict requirement seems to be in the GPLv3 which limits those who take the open source. The aspect of being viral includes that the source will not be turned into closed source. The most negative effect is that GPLv3 licensed components may have side effects of non-GLPv3 licensed code. This is something worth seeing critically. I think we can all see the difference. Open your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball... All those insults fly back to you and therefore apply to you. It makes all your argumentation (which may be valid) futile. In fact, that kind of acting is a typical means of communist dictatures - using insulting language to actually avoid any discussion and instead strengthen the means of oppression! You should learn some history. And maybe calm down, as the hatred you're spreading is really unpleasant. A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will typically use the BSD license which is more free. No, it's just plain free. Among the many licenses, the BSD license seems to be the most free license (or, the only free license, which is a valid point of view), as it explicitely allows things that the GPL does not. Of course, there are different interpretations if this is a good or a bad thing. For a system like FreeBSD that wants to offer a free system (in the widest sense), GPLv3 system components (such as compilers) could be a no-go. 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. By no, except you have actually agreed that the statement is true, even if you tried to deny it. Again, please try to have some culture in discussion. Maybe you should also read Marx. :-) It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code can be a key component in a proprietary closed source product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance), and nobody will find out about that fact. Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is about letting them do what /they/ want. Licensing is about choosing - a main criteria of a free society. A developer is free to even keep his sources closed, to release them as GPL v2 or v3, or as BSDL (or choose from other licenses, or even write his own). In the next step, licenses have impact on how sources can be used. As I did explain, GPLv3 code may be problematic in this regards in certain environments. It may perfectly fit in others. As long as there's an agreement of the users of such source to accept the license, it's okay. What's _not_ okay is when the license forces you to do something you don't want to do, or simply can't do. Let's see if you can guess which one of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing people to do what you want. If people don't do what I want, they're limiting my freedom. :-) Seriously, you should pay more attention to what I wrote. Even though English is not my native language, I try to be as precise as possible, and if I can't do that (because a lack of knowledge, because of assumptions or deduction), I make clear that it is not the case. Hint: Read carefully: I think, as far as I know or similar formulas are an indicator. Finally: Insulting me is not a way to go. It shows that you don't value the freedom of speech. Of course you are free to say whatever you want. But as soon as you insult people and limit their
Re: An idea I have!
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:57:50PM -0400, Allen wrote: Hello all! So, I'm sitting here watching True Blood, and also checking my Email, and updating my Ports, and a thought hits me; Wouldn't it be a cool way to do FreeBSD Advocacy, by making a BSD based band??? And the name would be so simple! The BSD Boys !! (Yea I know, BSD has been sued enough lol, but come on, you have to admit that Beastie as a mascot, the name was chosen and meant to be pronounced BSD because Beastie sort of sounds like that when said out loud. I could even try writing a song like BSD Licensed to Init or something else moderately funny ;) Ohh!!! License to Kill -9 ;) I know some of this is just silly and all, but in my experience, most of you have a very good sense of humor, and it's almost 11 PM right now, and I have to get up for work at 1:30 AM, so, between the no sleep thing, and me having to much to do right now, I needed a little break, and, well, I like humor, and making people laugh. Of course, this COULD actually be a neat idea if done right lol. Anyway, I Hope someone gets a good laugh out of this. I'm generally actually pretty good with coming up with ideas, as I'm usually pretty creative for the most part, and, well, what can I say? I'm sitting here in one of my Christmas Presents (Oldschool FreeBSD Power to Serve Tee Shirt) and I thought Hey, I wonder if I can try this out. Anyway, I can probably come up with way more than this, and if anyone likes it, or thinks it's funny, I'll try more :) If nothing else, I Hope it gives someone a laugh, -Allen I did smile, for sure. Do you suppose we could have grog@ on bassoon? Slightly more seriously, look WAY back in the archives (well, less than 15 years, more than 5) and see if you can find W. Palfreman's take on the Beatles Let it Be. BSD, BSD, BSD, yeah, BSD ... there will be an answer... I don't know if I could perform with such a group, but I'd be interested in helping produce the studio work. Unfortunately, my audio box runs Windows. Win98, AAMOF. My synth is on its last legs, too. Kevin Kinsey PS I found it for ya: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat/2004-March/002195.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Attaching a monitor via vga
I have a thinkpad t61p running freebsd9.0. The window size is 1680x1050 -- a reasonable size -- but the screen itself is 38cm. (15) which is irritatingly small for my old eyes. So I want to attach an external monitor via a vga cable, which I have been doing with my RedHat thinkpad A31P for years. I tried attaching Asus VE228H (1920x1080) but it would display only part of the window (the top-left corner). I get a similar behaviour with a Samsung SyncMaster. When I tried to xinit with the monitor attached, it displays an even smaller part of the screen. (On my previous thinkpad with a Samsung, to get a reasonable full window I had to unplug the vga, start xinit, and then plug in the vga, but I can live with that.) My questions: 1) What can I do to display the whole window on an external monitor? 2) Is there a monitor out there that would better support such use? 3) Would a Samsung T220HD 22 which claims to support 1680x1050 work, and is there someone in Toronto who sells it and would let me test it? (Craigs list doesn't qualify). -- david ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Attaching a monitor via vga
Hi, On Wednesday 20 June 2012 07:52:58 David Tilbrook wrote: I have a thinkpad t61p running freebsd9.0. The window size is 1680x1050 -- a reasonable size -- but the screen itself is 38cm. (15) which is irritatingly small for my old eyes. yeah, the age. So I want to attach an external monitor via a vga cable, which I have been doing with my RedHat thinkpad A31P for years. Do you still have access to the xorg.conf? Try to set a single configuration which only supports the native resolution of that screen. You also could have a test with a normal PC and the monitor. Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 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, though his choice of phrasing may have been imperfect in this case. He was, it seems to me, trying to take an even-handed approach to describing the positions of both sides of a contentious matter, and letting the reader make up his or her own mind about it. In fact, if there's any bias showing in what he said, I think it leans toward copyfree licenses like the various BSD licenses, rather than toward copyleft licenses such as the various GNU licenses. There are better targets than Polytropon for your ire. A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will typically use the BSD license which is more free. No, it's just plain free. This would seem like a much more reasonable statement if it was not preceded by your immediately prior invective. 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. Yes, it is often criticized that way -- by people who, in my considered opinion, have their heads up their asses -- and the fact that Polytropon pointed out this simple fact does not make him a bad person. It's also worth noting that a lot of the people who make such ridiculous comments about copyfree licenses are often not atheists, Marxists, or bastards. They're often just nuts. . . . and what's wrong with being an atheist? I'm not an atheist (more of an agnostic Taoist), but if someone wants to believe he or she has absolute knowledge of the (non-)existence of any god, that's his or her prerogative. I would judge such a person no more harshly than a devoted monotheist. Your beliefs are your own affair; only your behavior, as it affects other people, is of particular concern to me. In the particular venue of a FreeBSD mailing list, my interest narrows further to exclude things that have nothing to do with FreeBSD and associated software, community, and so on. I don't see how atheist is a meaningful insult, especially when we're talking about software, or how it can be gleaned from someone's licensing preferences. It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code can be a key component in a proprietary closed source product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance), and nobody will find out about that fact. Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is about letting them do what /they/ want. Let's see if you can guess which one of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing people to do what you want. This would probably be a better-received statement if the rest of your commentary in the same email was not mostly about (probably entirely inaccurate) insults flung at someone for failing to use the specific phrasing you prefer when referring to the crazies who believe using software distributed under a copyfree license is an act of pure evil. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: converting mpost(ed) files individually to eps
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Antonio Olivares wrote: But I get error in line 16: $ ./mpost-eps webfig ./mpost-eps: 16: Syntax error: word unexpected for file in file.* do Either put the do on the next line, or put a ; before it: for file in file.* ; do Moving the do to the next line does it :) Thanks for helping! Regards, Antonio ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Attaching a monitor via vga
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 08:52:58PM -0400, David Tilbrook wrote: I have a thinkpad t61p running freebsd9.0. The window size is 1680x1050 -- a reasonable size -- but the screen itself is 38cm. (15) which is irritatingly small for my old eyes. So I want to attach an external monitor via a vga cable, which I have been doing with my RedHat thinkpad A31P for years. I tried attaching Asus VE228H (1920x1080) but it would display only part of the window (the top-left corner). I get a similar behaviour with a Samsung SyncMaster. When I tried to xinit with the monitor attached, it displays an even smaller part of the screen. (On my previous thinkpad with a Samsung, to get a reasonable full window I had to unplug the vga, start xinit, and then plug in the vga, but I can live with that.) My questions: 1) What can I do to display the whole window on an external monitor? 2) Is there a monitor out there that would better support such use? 3) Would a Samsung T220HD 22 which claims to support 1680x1050 work, and is there someone in Toronto who sells it and would let me test it? (Craigs list doesn't qualify). You probably want to look into using the xrandr command to configure output for connected monitors. Try this first: xrandr --auto If that does not work, you may have to do something more sophisticated. For instance, I have a shell script that looks like this for when I connect my laptop to an external monitor: #!/bin/sh xrandr --auto xrandr --output LVDS1 --off xrandr --newmode 1680x1050_60.00 146.25 1680 1784 1960 2240 1050 1053 1059 1089 -hsync +vsync xrandr --addmode VGA1 1680x1050_60.00 xrandr --output VGA1 --mode 1680x1050_60.00 xli -onroot -border black -center /path/to/enso_16x9.png You should use this to find out the name of the display you identify in the --output line: xrandr -q You'll need to get information about your monitor's display parameters for the --newmode line, and the --addmode and --mode lines uses the same resolution string as in the --newmode line. The xli line is there just to re-apply my background image, because it gets a little out of whack when I change monitors like that. When I'm going to disconnect from the external monitor, I run xrandr --auto before disconnecting to get the laptop to recognize my laptop's built-in display again, then run xrandr --auto one more time after disconnecting the external monitor to get it to forget about the settings for the external monitor so my laptop display won't act funny because it thinks there's a larger external monitor still attached. I hope that helps. Let me know if you want any more information about how this works. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program
i tested your test program, and in that case, contrary to testing common unix programs, difference is far higher showing gcc superiority. i did this test with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang and FreeBSD 9 supplied gcc. clearly shows that clang actually cannot do more agressive optimization (that trades space) at all, and at -O2 is far slower. produced: -rwxr-xr-x 1 tmp tmp 11168 20 cze 06:18 test.cc.O2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 tmp tmp 17024 20 cze 06:18 test.cc.O3 -rwxr-xr-x 1 tmp tmp 17024 20 cze 06:18 test.cc.O9 -rwxr-xr-x 1 tmp tmp 11096 20 cze 06:18 test.clang.O2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 tmp tmp 11096 20 cze 06:18 test.clang.O3 cc.O2: real0m2.877s user0m2.829s sys 0m0.030s cc.O3: real0m2.142s user0m2.131s sys 0m0.000s cc.09: real0m2.071s user0m2.054s sys 0m0.008s clang.O2: real0m3.440s user0m3.405s sys 0m0.018s clang.O3: real0m3.217s user0m3.205s sys 0m0.001s How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds? From what i know now GPLv3 isn't really a problem for us, your may freely distribute binary only software compiled by latest gcc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program
Hi, On Wednesday 20 June 2012 11:26:13 Wojciech Puchar wrote: How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds? what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree? Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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, though his choice of GNU licence is nothing about freedom, it just says it is freedom. But what really is important for FreeBSD is if it can be used. IMHO nothing from GPLv3 prevents it, and it is no licence based reasons to use clang. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program
How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds? what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree? what is a problem as clang is in the ports tree? the problem is that these compilers are not 100% compatible and soon if clang will be default it will be not just easy to build freebsd with gcc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote: i tested your test program, and in that case, contrary to testing common unix programs, difference is far higher showing gcc superiority. i did this test with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang and FreeBSD 9 supplied gcc. clearly shows that clang actually cannot do more agressive optimization (that trades space) at all, and at -O2 is far slower. 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? Try thinking of the transition as a step back to take many steps forward. Or just change your compiler. Complaining on this list is definitely the wrong place though. Those who have offended your sensibilities by moving to Clang don't live here. People have already done nice work on the benchmarks: http://blog.vx.sk/archives/25-FreeBSD-Compiler-Benchmark-gcc-base-vs-gcc-ports-vs-clang.html -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program
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? For now i see ONLY politics and aggression after pointing out facts. This doesn't look like serious behaviour of serious people. Or just change your compiler. Will i be able to compile FreeBSD base system with gcc after some time? not sure. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program
Hi, On Wednesday 20 June 2012 11:46:20 Wojciech Puchar wrote: How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds? what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree? what is a problem as clang is in the ports tree? for the port? It does not make a difference. the problem is that these compilers are not 100% compatible and soon if clang will be default it will be not just easy to build freebsd with gcc. For the kernel? How old is the gcc which comes with the kernel? Why are newer versions not in the base system? Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
