I found the phoronix summary better than the sourceware email. The email proposed a feature and had “it could look like …” bikedshedding discussions back in July — the original phoronix page summaried the conclusion of adding the feature, including what the names are now called.

It’s useful to know where something started, but the original reference was better at explaining the current situation.

Ok, I'll change it back. I don't know which article is better but the phoronix.com one is quite a bit more recent. Everyone who's curious should probably just read both.

However, the email has nothing to do with the post title. The email is talking about Linux distributions and doesn't even use the word clang or even llvm. It may have precipitated the change but it is not the change. Moreover, the Phoronix article cites the email, well cites their own article about Linux distros which cites the email.

There is usually a much better primary source behind any post of Phoronix.