Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:02:55 +0100 From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> To: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) Message-ID: <20090110160255.GA63803@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <54244.38350.qm@web32701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <61484.71762.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20090110113308.GA25584@freebsd.org> <54244.38350.qm@web32701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 06:33:53AM -0800, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > > > From: Roman Divacky > > > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 07:22:38PM -0800, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > > > FWIW, > > > > > > I had some informal talk with brooks@ about this at EuroBSDCon: > > > > > > - groff(1) needs a C++ compiler so clang is not (yet) an option? for the time > > being we will have to live with GCC or llvm-gcc. > > > > I guess once the switch happens we are going to live for some with both > > gcc and clang/llvm. I also guess that by the time the switch happens > > clang is going to be full C++ capable :) > > I think it's more realistic to move to gcc-llvm first and then to clang: testing gcc-llvm helps?test the llvm capabilities?that clang will require to be a viable replacement. In any case, before doing such a thing an experimental run of the ports tree with?the alternative compiler?would prove very valuable to the developers. I have already asked pav@ about this but I am waiting for clang to implement two features (designated initializers and wchars)... about the llvm-gcc... I dont know... it looks like a dead end to me...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090110160255.GA63803>