From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jan 10 16:03:10 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAFD51065675
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:03:10 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rdivacky@vlk.vlakno.cz)
Received: from vlakno.cz (77-93-215-190.static.masterinter.net [77.93.215.190])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A37618FC0C
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:03:09 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rdivacky@vlk.vlakno.cz)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by vlakno.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2569CB123;
	Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:02:58 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at vlakno.cz
Received: from vlakno.cz ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (lev.vlakno.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id fxFj7DlUrGzc; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:02:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from vlk.vlakno.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by vlakno.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04249CB2B7;
	Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:02:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from rdivacky@localhost)
	by vlk.vlakno.cz (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id n0AG2tOO063961;
	Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:02:55 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from rdivacky)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:02:55 +0100
From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>
To: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com>
Message-ID: <20090110160255.GA63803@freebsd.org>
References: <61484.71762.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20090110113308.GA25584@freebsd.org>
	<54244.38350.qm@web32701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54244.38350.qm@web32701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become
	standard compiler?)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:03:11 -0000

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...