From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 1 18:02:15 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D8E106566B for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 18:02:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Received: from eastrmfepo203.cox.net (eastrmfepo203.cox.net [68.230.241.218]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF718FC1D for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 18:02:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eastrmimpo209.cox.net ([68.230.241.224]) by eastrmfepo203.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20120401180207.EACA18532.eastrmfepo203.cox.net@eastrmimpo209.cox.net>; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 14:02:07 -0400 Received: from serene.no-ip.org ([98.164.83.206]) by eastrmimpo209.cox.net with bizsmtp id si271i00B4T5sES02i27oj; Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:02:07 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020209.4F78981F.00EA,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=bROEq2r9+Eyg9X7I3fQYdQhRp8F2m1l/XupKbT1znJs= c=1 sm=1 a=RcyhSEpB3QQA:10 a=G8Uczd0VNMoA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=cRs4AX/51puMaUeRAuoQtw==:17 a=OA2lqS22AAAA:8 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=r3HpZg1-v3RFnaQZDSgA:9 a=2FTI8rMU31NpnlquNmsA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=ZZAfTtC2Ym4A:10 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=cRs4AX/51puMaUeRAuoQtw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Received: from cox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by serene.no-ip.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q31I26eR046701; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 13:02:07 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 13:02:01 -0500 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" To: Robert Huff Message-ID: <20120401130201.272897fc@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <20344.21184.853321.579064@jerusalem.litteratus.org> References: <4F76DD24.4060104@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20120331135624.GA46283@ozzmosis.com> <20343.7837.796535.407848@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20120401073525.1c05bc0f@cox.net> <20344.21184.853321.579064@jerusalem.litteratus.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: using clang (was: Re: ps, clang and make variables) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 18:02:16 -0000 On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:06:08 -0400 Robert Huff wrote: > Conrad J. Sabatier writes: > > > Note, too, that none of these exceptions have anything to do with > > my /usr/src builds. I've been using clang for buildworld and > > buildkernel for quite some time now. > > I've heard that, but I think I'll wait until it becomes the > official default. :-) I can well understand your hesitation. I didn't jump on the clang bandwagon for a good while myself, either. But, from examining and comparing clang's assembly language output against gcc's, it does seem pretty apparent that clang produces some pretty darned efficient code, frequently using notably fewer machine instructions than gcc, so I try to use it now as much as possible. I also find its error and warning messages to be much more precise and informative than gcc's, which is a real boon if you do any coding yourself. There's that, plus the fact that the base system's version of gcc (4.2) doesn't fully support my processor family type (amdfam10), whereas clang does (although, to be fair, gcc 4.6+ does as well). > > Hope this helps somewhat. :-) > > Very much. > Thank you. You'll come around eventually, no doubt. :-) -- Conrad J. Sabatier conrads@cox.net