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