Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 11:03:20 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: amd64@FreeBSD.org, toolchain@FreeBSD.org, David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org>, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@felyko.com>, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [CFT] gcc: support for barcelona Message-ID: <D17F4069-7282-4EC5-9734-1E3389D3DE85@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <51A77A22.3040103@FreeBSD.org> References: <51A38CBD.6000702@FreeBSD.org> <E9DC99EF-F2E9-4A5F-8370-36DA25DE2C89@felyko.com> <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> <C0B4C633-EC1C-41AF-BE57-76B52DF47F52@FreeBSD.org> <65AA3A88-7B5E-439F-950D-47EDCDC3EAD1@bsdimp.com> <51A77A22.3040103@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 30, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > On 29.05.2013 11:06, Warner Losh wrote: >> On May 29, 2013, at 2:47 AM, David Chisnall wrote: >>=20 >>> On 29 May 2013, at 07:57, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>>=20 >>>> 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? >>>=20 >>> 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 BTW, this was over the top for me, and I shouldn't have done this. >> ... >> There are serious problems with clang on arm right now. And it = doesn't support mips. Removing gcc is way premature. >>=20 >> Warner >>=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > IMHO: >=20 > - 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. gcc is slated to be removed in 11. It is still useful in 10 to bootstrap = the external toolchain solution for non-tier 1 ports which otherwise = would be hard to build since we have no useful packages yet. Some ports = won't even build gcc by default in 10. Our external toolchain support is = brand new and shiny, but hasn't been through an end-to-end test yet on = all the platforms. Warner=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D17F4069-7282-4EC5-9734-1E3389D3DE85>