Hi Guys,
Just following up on a previous post (have changed the subject as this
is a port specific issue that has cropped up since upgrading from
9.1-RELEASE (amd64) to 9.2-RELEASE (amd64)).
This is interesting. I recompiled this port without Clang (using the
base gcc) and it has not
03.10.2013 17:36, dweimer wrote:
When upgrading from 9.1 to 9.2 using source, is there any benefit to
rebuilding twice, due to the clang version change? So that the second
buildworld/kernel is done from the updated clang 3.3, instead of the
clang 3.1 that was in FreeBSD 9.1?
During the
When upgrading from 9.1 to 9.2 using source, is there any benefit to
rebuilding twice, due to the clang version change? So that the second
buildworld/kernel is done from the updated clang 3.3, instead of the
clang 3.1 that was in FreeBSD 9.1?
--
Thanks,
Dean E. Weimer
http
- Original Message -
> From: Tijl Coosemans
> To: Quark
> Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org"
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013 1:41 PM
> Subject: Re: c++11 question: clang++ 3.3 header not found
>
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:22:49 +0800 (SGT) Quark wr
AFAIK, the easiest way to get C++11 support in clang is to use libc++ (see
http://blogs.freebsdish.org/theraven/2013/01/03/the-new-c-stack-in-9-1/).
See also
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-toolchain/2013-May/000841.html .
2013/8/27 Quark
> % uname -a
> FreeBSD cobalt 9
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:22:49 +0800 (SGT) Quark wrote:
> % uname -a
> FreeBSD cobalt 9.2-RC3 FreeBSD 9.2-RC3 #0 r254795: Sat Aug 24 20:25:04 UTC
> 2013 r...@bake.isc.freebsd.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
>
> % clang++ --version
> FreeBSD clang version 3.3 (tag
list, please pardon
my stupid mail client hung, giving me impression that e-mail was not sent.
apologies for spam.
- Original Message -
> From: Quark
> To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org"
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013 12:52 PM
> Subject: c++11 question
% uname -a
FreeBSD cobalt 9.2-RC3 FreeBSD 9.2-RC3 #0 r254795: Sat Aug 24 20:25:04 UTC 2013
r...@bake.isc.freebsd.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
% clang++ --version
FreeBSD clang version 3.3 (tags/RELEASE_33/final 183502) 20130610
Target: x86_64-unknown-freebsd9.2
Thread model: posix
% uname -a
FreeBSD cobalt.corp.nai.org 9.2-RC3 FreeBSD 9.2-RC3 #0 r254795: Sat Aug 24
20:25:04 UTC 2013 r...@bake.isc.freebsd.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC
amd64
% clang++ --version
FreeBSD clang version 3.3 (tags/RELEASE_33/final 183502) 20130610
Target: x86_64-unknown-freebsd9.2
% uname -a
FreeBSD cobalt 9.2-RC3 FreeBSD 9.2-RC3 #0 r254795: Sat Aug 24 20:25:04 UTC 2013
r...@bake.isc.freebsd.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
% clang++ --version
FreeBSD clang version 3.3 (tags/RELEASE_33/final 183502) 20130610
Target: x86_64-unknown-freebsd9.2
Thread model: posix
Hello there,
I've installed the c++ (libc++ library) like this :
make -C /usr/src/lib/libcxxrt all install
make CXX=clang -C /usr/src/lib/libc++ all install
Then, I was able to compile with clang++ using -std=c++11 -stdlib=libc++.
And now, after the clang-3.2 update I can't build
On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:12:24 +0200
Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>
> CRYPTO_num_locks is in libcrypto so try linking with that in addition
> to libssl.
>
Now i works, thanks a lot!! Forgot to add -Xlinker /usr/lib/libcrypto.a and
-Xlinker /usr/lib/libpthread.a
Now everything works as expected.
Bytes
On 2013-05-31 15:26, Eduardo Morras wrote:
> I'm trying to compile a single big file project written in C. It
> compiled fine, without problems in my develop machine (FreeBSD 9.1
> STABLE, Clang3.2) but not on the server (FreeBSD 9.1 Release#0, Clang
> 3.1). The app uses openssl
Hi,
I'm trying to compile a single big file project written in C. It compiled fine,
without problems in my develop machine (FreeBSD 9.1 STABLE, Clang3.2) but not
on the server (FreeBSD 9.1 Release#0, Clang 3.1). The app uses openssl dtls and
links to system ssl libs. Am I missing some
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 17:59:39 Robert Huff wrote:
> mrkvrg writes:
> > Is this what you are looking for?
> >
> >clang --version
> >
> >or
> >
> >clang -v
>
> It is.
> However: "clang -help" says &
mrkvrg writes:
> Is this what you are looking for?
>
>clang --version
>
> or
>
>clang -v
It is.
However: "clang -help" says "-v" means
show commands to run and use ver
On Saturday, April 13, 2013 16:40:20 mrkvrg wrote:
> Hello Robert,
>
> Is this what you are looking for?
>
> clang --version
>
> or
>
> clang -v
>
> My system reports the following for both parameters:
>
> FreeBSD clang version 3.0 (branches/rel
Hello Robert,
Is this what you are looking for?
clang --version
or
clang -v
My system reports the following for both parameters:
FreeBSD clang version 3.0 (branches/release_30 142614) 20111021
Target: i386-unknown-freebsd9.0
Thread model: posix
Cheers ...
Marek
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013
Looking at the man page I can find no option for reporting the
version - have I missed something?
Respectfully,
Robert Huff
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.or
Alexandre writes:
> > Before the installation of clang and the default system
> > compiler, "make buildworld" ended with a nice little banner announcing
> > the fact and the time the build completed.
> > After, it ends like this:
>
> Your mail has
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Robert Huff wrote:
>
>
> Before the installation of clang and the default system
> compiler, "make buildworld" ended with a nice little banner announcing
> the fact and the time the build completed.
>
Before the installation of clang and the default system
compiler, "make buildworld" ended with a nice little banner announcing
the fact and the time the build completed.
After, it ends like this:
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org ma
c 4 06:55:39 UTC 2012
>> r...@obrian.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386
>>
>> Almost 90% of ports I built with clang and in etc/make.conf I have:
>>
>> CC=clang
>> CXX=clang++
>> CPP=clang-cpp
>>
>> But when I ran clang --ver
s/GENERIC i386
>
> Almost 90% of ports I built with clang and in etc/make.conf I have:
>
> CC=clang
> CXX=clang++
> CPP=clang-cpp
>
> But when I ran clang --version I got:
>
> FreeBSD clang version 3.1 (branches/release_31 156863) 20120523
> Target: i386-unknown-f
I had FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE which was updated with freebsd-update upgrade to
RC-3 and RC3 with freebsd-update to 9.1 release:
FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE #0 r243826: Tue Dec 4 06:55:39 UTC 2012
r...@obrian.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386
Almost 90% of ports I built with clang and
Let me clarify. If I build the 9.1-RC2 kernel using the clang binary
from 9.0-RELEASE, it boots fine.
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Mike Cui wrote:
> I'm seeing that on 9.1-RC2 (i386), clang can no longer build a kernel
> that boots. Any kernel I build would get stuck at "T
I'm seeing that on 9.1-RC2 (i386), clang can no longer build a kernel
that boots. Any kernel I build would get stuck at "Timecounters tick
every 1.000 msec". However, building the same kernel with gcc has no
problems. Also, if I build the kernel with clang from 9.0-RELEASE, it
als
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 04:25:14 +1100 andrew clarke
wrote:
>On Tue 2012-10-16 10:52:36 UTC-0500, Scott Bennett (benn...@cs.niu.edu) wrote:
>
>> From looking at the clang(1) man page, it is not clear to me what the
>> difference is between the -arch option and the -mar
On Tue 2012-10-16 10:52:36 UTC-0500, Scott Bennett (benn...@cs.niu.edu) wrote:
> From looking at the clang(1) man page, it is not clear to me what the
> difference is between the -arch option and the -march= option. Would
> someone please summarize the difference(s) for me? Thanks muc
From looking at the clang(1) man page, it is not clear to me what the
difference is between the -arch option and the -march= option. Would
someone please summarize the difference(s) for me? Thanks much!
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:21:28 +0400
Артем Зуйков wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can't build anything with clang & libc++
> What am I doing wrong?
>
>
> > clang++ -stdlib=libc++ test1.cpp -o x
> In file included from test1.cpp:1:
> /usr/include/c++/v1/cstdlib:134:9:
Hi,
I can't build anything with clang & libc++
What am I doing wrong?
> clang++ -stdlib=libc++ test1.cpp -o x
In file included from test1.cpp:1:
/usr/include/c++/v1/cstdlib:134:9: error: no member named 'at_quick_exit'
in the global namespace
using ::at_quick_exit;
~
The same as in 9-STABLE?
$ cc -v
FreeBSD clang version 3.1 (branches/release_31 156863) 20120523
Target: x86_64-unknown-freebsd9.0
Thread model: posix
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com
This is nominally more suited for current@, but:
As of midnight US Pacific Time, what is the version of clang in
HEAD?
Robert Huff
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http
If you really want/need clang 3.1 you should be tracking 9-STABLE,
source branch not RELEASE.
Port system is separate from base system, and installs things
only in /usr/local/*.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/llvm-clang-3-1
Hi!
Today was upadate for llvm and clang 3.1.
My system is FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE-p3.
I update the system with pormaster and llvm was updated to 3.1 but clang shows
clang version 3.0 (branches/release_30 142614) 20111021
I installed lang/clang which is 3.1 and I have it in /usr/local/bin:
clang
If it would be truly about removing GPLv3 code that hurts, replacing
libstdc++ would be first thing to do.
I assume you mean like the new libc++?
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NewC%2B%2BStack
yes. this is actually GREAT MOVE!
even if it's slower, object oriented languages are not about speed anyway.
On 25/06/2012 13:56, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>
> C++ libraries can be limiting, but... wasn't replaced.
>
> If it would be truly about removing GPLv3 code that hurts, replacing
> libstdc++ would be first thing to do.
I assume you mean like the new libc++?
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NewC%2B%2BStack
>
programming involves many of the classic trade-offs in programming: dynamic
features add flexibility, static features add speed and type checking."
My Note: please keep in mind we are talking about language used for writing
clang, a compiler tool.
So, Objective-C has disadvantage with r
Jakub Lach mailplus.pl> writes:
>
> > I am more concerned about an aspect of the language the clang tools are
> > written in, namely the use of object-oriented paradigm of c++ (it is a
> > phony
> > paradigm, one that does not exist in nature or reality, which expl
> I am more concerned about an aspect of the language the clang tools are
> written in, namely the use of object-oriented paradigm of c++ (it is a
> phony
> paradigm, one that does not exist in nature or reality, which explains
> the failure rate of C++ OO projects historically an
Chad Perrin apotheon.com> writes:
>
> Anyway, switching from GCC to Clang has essentially nothing to do with
> the kinds of problems we increasingly see in the Linux world. In fact,
> one of the biggest problems in the Linux world is the fact that GNU
> projects have a tend
I am not sure, as long as clients would be treated seriously!
I look at large corporate software vendors and see them treating
customers seriously maybe 2% of the time at best. In this case, most of
I assumed FreeBSD team are OK and would fit in this 2% or even those 0.2%
am i wrong?
_
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 09:24:57AM -0500, Reid Linnemann wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > I disagree with the assessment by others that FreeBSD is in some way
> > effectively a subsidiary of its corporate users, but it does have
> > corporate users, as well as non-
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 01:16:09PM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:06:12PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > > i already proposed (but not publically) to turn FreeBSD into
> > > commercial system.
> > >
> > > REALLY i would not see a problem to pa
brought up. I
suppose I should not expect any different by now, given the strong track
record you've managed to establish just in this one extended discussion.
> >
> >"Worse" based on a couple of very narrowly applicable metrics derived
>
> There will be IMHO soon good compil
> From woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl Fri Jun 22 09:26:33 2012
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:25:55 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar
> To: Robert Bonomi
> cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> > Because it doesn't address an of the
"Thomas Mueller" wrote:
>
>
> There actually is/was a closed-source BSD (BSDI), and there is Mac OS X, with
> BSD under the covers.
BSDi sold source-code licenses. I was an early-adopter, and I _have_ one.
The vast majority of the code was taken directly from BSD 4.4 Lite, and
the source-code
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:25:55 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
examples? All test shows that gcc code is not only bad, but very good.
Why are you just saying things you know isn't true?
Fast code is not guaranteed to be correct code.
___
freebsd-ques
528
+ TOSHIBA Trans 1.00 + TEAC DV-28S-V 1.0B
Software:
OS: FreeBSD, Kernel: 9.0-RELEASE-p3 (x86_64), Compiler: GCC 4.2.1
20070831 + Clang 3.0 (SVN 142614), File-System: zfs
CPUTYPE=core2
clang 3.0
Test project /tmp/ports/usr/ports/graphics/png/work/libpng-1.5.11
Start 1: png
Because it doesn't address an of the *OTHER* valid reasons why GCC is
being replaced -- among them:
1) GCC's continuously increasing propensity to generate "bad code",
examples? All test shows that gcc code is not only bad, but very good. Why
are you just saying things you know isn't true?
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> I disagree with the assessment by others that FreeBSD is in some way
> effectively a subsidiary of its corporate users, but it does have
> corporate users, as well as non-corporate users. Just as it must
> reasonably see to the needs of the i
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 12:46:15 2012
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:37:48 -0500
> From: Mark Felder
> Cc: Wojciech Puchar
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:36:03 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 12:44:17 2012
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:36:03 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar
> To: Mark Felder
> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> >>
> >> sources please!
> >
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 12:39:02 2012
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:30:23 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar
> To: "Robison, Dave"
> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> > Because there's no rea
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 12:37:00 2012
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:30:40 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar
> To: Mark Felder
> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> z> wrote:
> >
> >> p
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>
> >> "We put clang because sponsors wanted it."
> >>
> >
> >
> > Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not to be encumbered by a GPLv3
> they are not.
> programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:06:12PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > i already proposed (but not publically) to turn FreeBSD into
> > commercial system.
> >
> > REALLY i would not see a problem to pay say 100$ per server licence.
>
> I would see a problem with that -- not bec
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 06:07:49 2012
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:06:12 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar
> To: Michel Talon
> Cc: FreeBSD Questions , kpn...@pobox.com
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> > for commercial sponsors of Free
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Mark Felder wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:16:31 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
> wrote:
>
>> programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
>
> This has not been decided in court yet.
In which court not? Of which jurisdiction?
Even if one jurisdiction says so
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:06:12PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself.
> >If FreeBSD appears
> >as a subsidiary of some commercial company (say Juniper) i am not sure this
> >will be good
>
> I think any project that size is
On Friday 22 June 2012 07:04:35 Bernt Hansson wrote:
>
>
> I want to whish all a very mery Midsummer's Eve and Midsummer's Day
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsummer#Sweden
I appreciate the sentiment but it's midwinter here ;)
Jonathan
___
freebsd-q
underway to make sure the base system will compile cleanly with both
Clang and GCC 4.2+, so I think you're just making up complaints here.
Someone (other than Wojciech Puchar, who would just be talking out of his
once again personal attacks from unhappy childs.
ass) correct me i
Chad Perrin wrote:
Someone in this extended discussion mentioned that there are efforts
underway to make sure the base system will compile cleanly with both
Clang and GCC 4.2+, so I think you're just making up complaints here.
Someone (other than Wojciech Puchar, who would just be talking o
d
replacing it with much worse product.
"Worse" based on a couple of very narrowly applicable metrics derived
There will be IMHO soon good compiler available. it's highly probable that
pcc would improve a lot, for now it is small, quick but doesn't produce
good code for new CPUs
Hi,
On Friday 22 June 2012 12:04:35 Bernt Hansson wrote:
> 2012-06-22 06:50, Erich Dollansky skrev:
> > On Friday 22 June 2012 11:18:01 Bernt Hansson wrote:
> >> 2012-06-21 10:59, fred.mor...@gmail.com skrev:
> >>> we have feelings too!!!
> >>
> >> Ouch! Another "feeling" person. Can't you just s
2012-06-22 06:50, Erich Dollansky skrev:
Hi,
On Friday 22 June 2012 11:18:01 Bernt Hansson wrote:
2012-06-21 10:59, fred.mor...@gmail.com skrev:
we have feelings too!!!
Ouch! Another "feeling" person. Can't you just stop this feeling stuff.
do not forget the feelings regarding the devil.
Hi,
On Friday 22 June 2012 11:18:01 Bernt Hansson wrote:
> 2012-06-21 10:59, fred.mor...@gmail.com skrev:
> > we have feelings too!!!
>
> Ouch! Another "feeling" person. Can't you just stop this feeling stuff.
>
do not forget the feelings regarding the devil.
Erich
_
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 07:30:23PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >Because there's no reason to do that. It's an asinine suggestion.
> >
> >Clang is here to stay. Most of us are happy about that decision. GCC
>
> Because most that are not already stop
gt; I hate too, and in spite of this am against removing gcc and
> replacing it with much worse product.
"Worse" based on a couple of very narrowly applicable metrics derived
from specific, very particular use case conditions, whose measures are of
negligible scale for most purposes, igno
eing said, i agree with you that the FreeBSD binaries will not
> see a big performance degradation through the use of clang, so, as long
> as gcc is in the ports to be used with performance critical stuff, it
> is no big deal. Anyways as a long time FreeBSD user i have seen clang
> present
2012-06-21 10:59, fred.mor...@gmail.com skrev:
we have feelings too!!!
Ouch! Another "feeling" person. Can't you just stop this feeling stuff.
/sarcasm off
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/free
2012-06-21 19:33, Mark Felder skrev:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:30:40 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
z> wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
sources please!
Google "GPLv3 court case". There are no applicable results. Until
He can give you many reasons as to why the GPLv3 is the
> > wrong way to go. I can ask him for these and other reasons at your
> > request.
>
> Yes, that would be a good idea, not so much for me as for others who
> want to better understand the licensing issues of GCC compa
h wonders of
engineering brilliance as some documentation to the effect that basic
system network management tools were no longer guaranteed to work.
I have some pretty strong opinions about the way things are getting
broken in the Linux world, and some of the reasons this sort of problem
is grow
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:25:22AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >You're being paid to write a program for a customer. You
>
> i don't talk that case, but if i am hired to write some part of
> program as an employer in software company.
There are basically four circumstances that might apply he
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:40 -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
> Google "GPLv3 court case". There are no applicable results. Until a Judge
> decides what the license truly means everyone using it is at risk.
>
> As you've already been told it's not English it's Law
I assume that there's not just one ca
On 6/21/12 10:30 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
z> wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
sources please!
Logical fallacy -- looking for a non-existence proof.
___
freebsd-questions
On Jun 21, 2012 11:23 AM, "Wojciech Puchar"
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Additionally, the exceptions for using the GCC runtime library for
non-GPL executables
>> is limited to what hey call "eligible compilation processes", what rules
out using
>> proprietary GCC plugins or other combinations of core GCC fu
So, has anyone compared the performance of clang vs gcc compiled in daily use--
for example as a server? Anyone can cherry pick a couple of binaries, but how
important is this for the performance of FreeBSD world?
not big, as with almost any compiler. Most workload are dominated by cache
> 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"
So, has anyone compared the performance of clang v
Additionally, the exceptions for using the GCC runtime library for non-GPL
executables
is limited to what hey call "eligible compilation processes", what rules out
using
proprietary GCC plugins or other combinations of core GCC functionality with
non-GPL
tooling and extensions.
Please note th
Mark Felder schreef op 21-06-2012 19:28:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:16:31 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
Additionally, the exceptions for using the GCC runtime library for
non-GPL executables
is limi
On 6/21/12 10:36 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
sources please!
Google "GPLv3 court case". There are no applicable results. Until a
Judge decides what the license truly means everyone using it is at risk.
true.
But why anyone from FreeBSD fundation didn't just write official
letter to GNU "Fr
On 06/21/2012 10:30, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> Because there's no reason to do that. It's an asinine suggestion.
>>
>> Clang is here to stay. Most of us are happy about that decision. GCC
>
> Because most that are not already stopped and ignored thing. and use G
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:36:03 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
But why anyone from FreeBSD fundation didn't just write official letter
to GNU "Free" Software Foundation asking for just that case?
There needs to be a lawsuit and lawyers and judges need to be involved.
You can't just ask the
sources please!
Google "GPLv3 court case". There are no applicable results. Until a Judge
decides what the license truly means everyone using it is at risk.
true.
But why anyone from FreeBSD fundation didn't just write official letter
to GNU "Free" Software Foundation asking for just that
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:30:40 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
z> wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
sources please!
Google "GPLv3 court case". There are no applicable results. Until a Judge
decides what the license
z> wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
sources please!
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe,
Because there's no reason to do that. It's an asinine suggestion.
Clang is here to stay. Most of us are happy about that decision. GCC
Because most that are not already stopped and ignored thing. and use GCC.
Politics won.
___
freebsd
really,
anyway (i don't have clang installed now) what clang compiled C++ programs
use as libstdc++ ?
do clang provide it?
cannot you just use this (or other) nonGPL library?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/ma
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:16:31 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fre
will not continue.
>
> but why it isn't clearly stated:
>
> "We put clang because sponsors wanted it."
>
Because there's no reason to do that. It's an asinine suggestion.
Clang is here to stay. Most of us are happy about that decision. GCC
will still be in
On 6/21/12 10:16 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
"We put clang because sponsors wanted it."
Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not to be encumbered by a
GPLv3
they are not.
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
Programs that link to GPLv3 libraries
"We put clang because sponsors wanted it."
Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not to be encumbered by a GPLv3
they are not.
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org ma
the money to pay for them comes from those
commercial users. If FreeBSD cannot maintain the critical mass to
continue, it will not continue.
but why it isn't clearly stated:
"We put clang because sponsors wanted it."
Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not t
commercial users. If
FreeBSD cannot maintain the critical mass to continue, it will not continue.
but why it isn't clearly stated:
"We put clang because sponsors wanted it."
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.free
On 6/21/12 1:40 AM, Michel Talon wrote:
Second, FreeBSD is not a commercial company, and while this argument may have a
merit
for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself.
You seem to be unaware of what percentage of the development and
maintenance staff and the m
wrong way to go. I can ask him for these and other reasons at your
request.
Yes, that would be a good idea, not so much for me as for others who want to
better understand the licensing issues of GCC compared to Clang.
i would like to hear this. but only in C compiler context.
i understand
easons at your
> request.
Yes, that would be a good idea, not so much for me as for others who want to
better understand the licensing issues of GCC compared to Clang.
That would help explain why FreeBSD is switching to Clang.
Tom
___
freebsd-qu
1 - 100 of 353 matches
Mail list logo
