Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 13:22:05 +0100 From: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> To: Astrodog <astrodog@gmail.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD Message-ID: <20100531132205.00000dd6@unknown> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikf5hB7An-PgUV7MZmscrAASumw3DEfnleKCvAq@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100529130240.GA99732@freebsd.org> <20100530135859.GI83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <508DA8CE-749A-46B4-AF0B-392DB08CBBCD@samsco.org> <20100531095617.GR83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <AANLkTin-gJ5ehBsIB3c7VCqdivsiKf3kZdwXkod6Lgsf@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikf5hB7An-PgUV7MZmscrAASumw3DEfnleKCvAq@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 May 2010 06:11:32 -0500 Astrodog <astrodog@gmail.com> wrote: > If I understand the build process correctly, it should be possible to > have both compilers in base for some (presumably short) period of > time... then just have which one you use be a configuration option, > which should give LLVM/clang some additional exposure, without the > obvious risks of a complete switch. It should be relatively simply to > have "clang as a compile time option in base" then "clang as default > with gcc as an option" then "clang only", as it proves itself out > building the tree. =46rom previous messages I don't think sparc64 is currently supported by clang very well, if at all, so I think we'll still need gcc in the base system for some time. --=20 Bruce Cran
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100531132205.00000dd6>