Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 10 Jan 2009 06:33:53 -0800 (PST)
From:      "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com>
To:        Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?)
Message-ID:  <54244.38350.qm@web32701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References:  <61484.71762.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20090110113308.GA25584@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=0A> From: Roman Divacky=0A> =0A> On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 07:22:38PM -0800,=
 Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:=0A> > FWIW,=0A> > =0A> > I had some informal talk =
with brooks@ about this at EuroBSDCon:=0A> > =0A> > - groff(1) needs a C++ =
compiler so clang is not (yet) an option=A0 for the time =0A> being we will=
 have to live with GCC or llvm-gcc.=0A> =0A> I guess once the switch happen=
s we are going to live for some with both=0A> gcc and clang/llvm. I also gu=
ess that by the time the switch happens=0A> clang is going to be full C++ c=
apable :)=0A=0AI think it's more realistic to move to gcc-llvm first and th=
en to clang: testing gcc-llvm helps=A0test the llvm capabilities=A0that cla=
ng will require to be a viable replacement. In any case, before doing such =
a thing an experimental run of the ports tree with=A0the alternative compil=
er=A0would prove very valuable to the developers.=0A=0APedro.=0A=0A=0A     =
 



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54244.38350.qm>