Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 13:02:01 -0500 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads@cox.net> To: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: using clang (was: Re: ps, clang and make variables) 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:06:08 -0400 Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120401130201.272897fc>