From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 11 14:10:14 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D88106564A; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:10:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from tensor.andric.com (cl-327.ede-01.nl.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:7b8:2ff:146::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F7A8FC16; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:10:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:897e:8083:4c98:946f] (unknown [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:897e:8083:4c98:946f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tensor.andric.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE94F5C37; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:10:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <504F4645.4070900@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:10:13 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric Organization: The FreeBSD Project User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20120905 Thunderbird/16.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Kargl 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> In-Reply-To: <20120911132410.GA87126@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org, Roman Divacky , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:10:15 -0000 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 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! > 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. > 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.