From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 10 14:33:54 2009 Return-Path: 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 035F710656E0 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:33:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from giffunip@tutopia.com) Received: from web32701.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web32701.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.207.245]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A77158FC12 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:33:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from giffunip@tutopia.com) Received: (qmail 40542 invoked by uid 60001); 10 Jan 2009 14:33:53 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: dLY9qGsVM1mYzy9MBLtwRVGSWfkKSpwzGw8hC4NbekxuNEgIlPA7JfD6JFXzByyFgITdsJcWXzQoy10YTdeumMnVdowOg30zXqnWjHkeGIYSlOJnr9Kcsfl9OIjmBKLp6XUiWNg6xsTsLs7tDgjE.Xre_D1UdK61.qNj7xPt7OckIM.dFtNnVMjBsq6E Received: from [190.157.124.207] by web32701.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 06:33:53 PST X-RocketYMMF: giffunip X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1156.77 YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1 References: <61484.71762.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20090110113308.GA25584@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 06:33:53 -0800 (PST) From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" To: Roman Divacky MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <54244.38350.qm@web32701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:18:42 +0000 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:33:54 -0000 =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 =