From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 30 16:16:40 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783BBD6F for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 16:16:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pfg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from nm30-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm30-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.90.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098252B2 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 16:16:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [98.138.90.51] by nm30.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 May 2013 16:11:18 -0000 Received: from [98.138.226.60] by tm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 May 2013 16:11:18 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp211.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 May 2013 16:11:18 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 224586.39253.bm@smtp211.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: Z2xGMyMVM1kXujRXmM3oZCVDuUSqnz5604WjKLZZViklP51 oxaiGSqOH68tx_U94MixSj0OyFGWG5_hwlKLlsTs6xNMVBwjQFWedXukbiwo Jh74J16x95N93T_U0mRUJW.MhoUnwiCYzjAELtLPVjvPLSnXQvkhxUka6y.I Vn6dAMRKiwXSv0F18rG2CesxVQ.veVVW0wRMgdA8fCUUvhWT4qjcww7w7DDm HCTx3fxikJPS7zYac3C1tGf8zrshBFjt3o9MKn7GT7rtEh54jJz1LDPXBLMl WZFrozByDlQa0n5VgD9fXqE_cgJzJbPF5QZyYVKwiBJ.1C8ioH3psSni8tFq t1rP5VqOln6lTjSxD_DWLc4W4VyojCn.rdNKIGOxTK6vCgJUbRy6PPHWjy9S VbTgxpIbhLtkjdfo05tpKWiXZ_JFVonzvp9JKjGquiMMpPmj3q85FLUhBUVu YAtuVglfIUgU61tEJNDYR1sJ5KRSHWzIOsMkgQ1LNjosM6eDJPesyVeWH X-Yahoo-SMTP: xcjD0guswBAZaPPIbxpWwLcp9Unf X-Rocket-Received: from [192.168.0.102] (pfg@190.157.126.109 with ) by smtp211.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 May 2013 09:11:18 -0700 PDT Message-ID: <51A77A22.3040103@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 11:11:14 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130407 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Warner Losh Subject: Re: [CFT] gcc: support for barcelona References: <51A38CBD.6000702@FreeBSD.org> <51A3B8AB.5080808@FreeBSD.org> <521EEFA1-E116-41F5-B618-238E7AA092A8@bsdimp.com> <3C29AD82-077D-4E6B-94C7-5D069A130348__27528.1591726982$1369769859$gmane$org@FreeBSD.org> <51A5A6F4.8000501@FreeBSD.org> <65AA3A88-7B5E-439F-950D-47EDCDC3EAD1@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <65AA3A88-7B5E-439F-950D-47EDCDC3EAD1@bsdimp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 May 2013 17:11:57 +0000 Cc: amd64@FreeBSD.org, toolchain@FreeBSD.org, David Chisnall , Rui Paulo , Andriy Gapon X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:16:40 -0000 On 29.05.2013 11:06, Warner Losh wrote: > On May 29, 2013, at 2:47 AM, David Chisnall wrote: > >> On 29 May 2013, at 07:57, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >>> In fact, I am of opinion that while such bugs exist gcc should be crowned back >>> as a default compiler. >> Seriously? Your show stopper bug is that, very occasionally, clang emits incorrect debug info? And Steve's is that clang emits code that is fully compliant with the C standard, but gives more floating point precision than he wanted? >> >> If those are the most serious problems we have with clang, then it's time to remove gcc 4.2.1 from the tree right now. I wish the problems that we had with it were so trivial... > NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO > ... > There are serious problems with clang on arm right now. And it doesn't support mips. Removing gcc is way premature. > > Warner > I didn't meant to start a clang vs gcc thread but it's evident that we were actually in need of expressing the issues about clang and the future of the tool chain. IMHO: - gcc has to go. It is old and, despite the scotch tape, unmaintained. libstdc++ in particular really has to go first: it is too confusing to have two C++ libraries where one of them is simply obsolete. OpenOffice, for example was recently ported to clang and libc++ however it will not work with the libstdc++ in base due to lack of C++11 support. - clang is not ready but it is getting there: I appreciate greatly having compiler_rt and the new C++ stack available. Unfortunately I do agree with the opinion that clang is taking too long to build and has become a bottleneck for buildworld. Now I would really like to see both gcc and clang living as packages outside of base. This would also mean that the installer has to start learning about pkgng (which is one of the things I miss about sysinstall). It's all wishful thinking though so I just want to thank everyone that is doing the real work both making an external toolchain possible and improving clang support. Regards, Pedro.