From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 1 17:10:21 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923B6106567C; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:10:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.208.78.105]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723948FC14; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:10:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost.apl.washington.edu [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o51HAJsI064904; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:10:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o51HAJd2064903; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:10:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:10:19 -0700 From: Steve Kargl To: Brooks Davis Message-ID: <20100601171019.GA64873@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20100531225732.GF31972@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <86sk57nmfl.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20100601162332.GA35104@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100601162332.GA35104@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav , current@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSDCan Toolchain Summit Summary X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:10:21 -0000 On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:23:32AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:15:26AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > > Brooks Davis writes: > > > http://wiki.freebsd.org/201005ToolchainSummitSummary > > > > "No new functionality that requires clang/llvm." > > > > How about "No new functionality with non-trivial incompatibilities with > > clang/llvm"? > > That too. I'll add it to the real roadmap page once I create it. > > As long as people are willing to avoid the darker areas of gcc > misfeatures that shouldn't be a problem in general, but I agree stating > it as a target is a good idea. > You might add a first step to fix FreeBSD's libelf incompatibilities with other libelf implementations. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-05/msg00381.html -- Steve