From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 30 17:03:25 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D00B9B6 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 17:03:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-ie0-x22d.google.com (mail-ie0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22d]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17E36CF for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 17:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id k13so1205826iea.18 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 10:03:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=oYtv7qsTyACIwJQOg3cgKill3wzWP1qKviemq82E7rI=; b=RiMTzgzS9LjaGr7VGuzjOHr0X1qDP8OWcYbh7+6wHxAvlHHNXzTpYFrT/aHg7Ge9E7 Z8N35J3PetVi/2XeUai7UyDGnuQ4pX2MeB3lhuygQT9UB0hHm9ixFD6cT90U+IlE3Omo +lVzKjyXpAj10iENv2Nb26gHwJTPBUD/7HT0QChFi+wtxNd4fArJyBQFzX7wZU+MlJAq qo/QIaGmkELUpAS0gzkYgPW3sw6F4w0U1LizNCzQmDHk9mtdic9Sg2clk40wRZJ0+gyW gE3T6YEXckW61LFI8hsXysfFonfkvuQdU8cC+AXmGI9x36Gu50Sj1IOavfzL4zKdd4kW v4xQ== X-Received: by 10.42.50.202 with SMTP id b10mr3532709icg.7.1369933404601; Thu, 30 May 2013 10:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkey-bot.int.fusionio.com ([209.117.142.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w8sm28106076igl.9.2013.05.30.10.03.22 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 May 2013 10:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Warner Losh Subject: Re: [CFT] gcc: support for barcelona Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <51A77A22.3040103@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 11:03:20 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: 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> <51A77A22.3040103@FreeBSD.org> To: Pedro Giffuni X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQniqlalJdM+f9VuXvtyy70n9ezUUcGOMaAX4ZGP8273qRBhgu1mQ/v+hjhXdJ8FhYn2nwgU X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 May 2013 17:21:28 +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 17:03:25 -0000 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 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=