Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:03:56 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: toolchain@FreeBSD.org, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th Message-ID: <20120911150356.GA87526@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <504F4645.4070900@FreeBSD.org> References: <20120910211207.GC64920@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20120911104518.GF37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911120649.GA52235@freebsd.org> <20120911132410.GA87126@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <504F4645.4070900@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:10:13PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2012-09-11 15:24, Steve Kargl wrote: > ... > >How fast clang builds world in comparison to gcc is irrelevant. > > Not at all irrelevant: this proposal is about changing the default > compiler for the FreeBSD system itself, not for all software out there. If /usr/bin/cc becomes clang, then the proposal is about more than the FreeBSD system. This affects any port that uses cc. > If certain software performs significantly better with gcc, and using > newer versions of the GPL is no problem, then it is obviously the better > choice. > > However, I think the majority of users can get by just fine using clang, > right now. Doug Barton even confirmed in this thread that 80% of our > ports already work with it! He stated that 80% build with clang. I doubt that he actually tested the functionality of some 17000 ports. > >What is important is whether software built with clang functions > >correctly. See for example, > > > >http://math-atlas.sourceforge.net/errata.html#WhatComp > > Yes, maths support, specifically precision, is admittedly still one of > clang's (really llvm's) weaker points. It is currently not really a > high priority item for upstream. > > This is obviously something that a certain part of our userbase will > care a lot about, while most of the time they won't care so much about > licensing or politics. So those people are probably better off using > gcc for the time being. Which gets back to Doug's original point. Until the ports system has worked out its infrastructure for choosing a compiler, a switch to clang as the default compiler would seem to be premature. > >Has anyone run Spec CPU2006 on i386 and amd64 FreeBSD? > > I am not aware of it, but is that test available publicly? I might take > a shot, if I can get my hands on it. Unfortunately, it has a cost associated with it. http://www.spec.org/order.html. Perhaps, the FreeBSD Foundation can make it available. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120911150356.GA87526>