Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:15:34 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: FuLLBLaSTstorm <fullblaststorm@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc Message-ID: <86fxjiyne1.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <6c51dbb10901150344s409cd834p3cd8fae189e42a68@mail.gmail.com> (fullblaststorm@gmail.com's message of "Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:44:12 %2B0500") References: <de2964020901141507m5a30c466ta1e05694d220ce0b@mail.gmail.com> <20090115084515.GA91157@freebsd.org> <496F0D1D.7080505@andric.com> <6c51dbb10901150344s409cd834p3cd8fae189e42a68@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
FuLLBLaSTstorm <fullblaststorm@gmail.com> writes: > I fully agree with it, too. Why not to put something like > OPTION_COMPILER=3D`gcc|clang|llvm' so every portion of system designed > for particular compiler could use the right one? I assume you are joking, and / or have no actual software development experience? DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86fxjiyne1.fsf>