From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 13 08:09:10 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFAB26FD for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 08:09:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from mail-vc0-f180.google.com (mail-vc0-f180.google.com [209.85.220.180]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F308AC0 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 08:09:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id p16so2694876vcq.11 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:09:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wemm.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=+HfH/S0lIIPVCSxwl5NZ6MPKMXajMR3XKNmUhZSMUcY=; b=IPJb/wc/N5TXBOAJvUcf1O7ALFPK/QJdziy/310AkBDKnJtVC46sGCjR3W6KNAlahE 9TboyI/R8K0HeUYGJPIvc4Bowwa1WRw6UwtdTUMD6nZrUWbCLQlg7CqBYD4tydrwbwK9 Yg2pPaApNbcyejkzcjDsl/Wn72Qb/QmUTf0ok= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=+HfH/S0lIIPVCSxwl5NZ6MPKMXajMR3XKNmUhZSMUcY=; b=EXjTecjroTukTFIbUi1YbH6JTgQqAfYZR/JO/BSJEy1Ce1VfKwo4xnMzrk/VzG6Ke8 0fPzFgiqGyfWExaftxKmmlAXgc84wJmN5f801jmerwFN07sz85Z8ErFsWmQoyIzidTyC 7LUPRzG83uPSoUNNgygBbcm1fw1BIdFwsYljyr9yiHWhOq8uAdVg3/Rq1KKK0prVqoPK KpeUERSxE4GygIwlPYKmN0YvvRiGIdD9eNH0K889K+BbZV3cOnk559ADQfIg4v+NutEc /UA5oNnuX9XUS4lJ10kI6XLLkGugVRGviNI49C6B/UO4zlsR3wT1sPVg75gZhp8Eff9c 4S4A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.239.14 with SMTP id ku14mr97607834vcb.57.1358064549332; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:09:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.174.135 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:09:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20130112233147.GK1410@funkthat.com> <20130113014242.GA61609@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20130113053725.GL1410@funkthat.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:09:09 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: how long to keep support for gcc on x86? From: Peter Wemm To: Adrian Chadd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk3a3LEnsPlGgSXQbTnXq6gLKHPpZb0l/p83Tr+Nju/jpVpjS6k88zIZ3XvhEV0Ckl+nJRp Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 08:09:10 -0000 On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Thus I think adding clang-only code to the system right now is very, > very premature. There still seem to be reasons to run systems on GCC > instead of clang. I don't have a problem with it so long as the system isn't *broken* if you're not using clang. ie: if the status-quo is maintained for gcc systems and g-faster bits are enabled with clang. It's fine to provide incentives to try clang, but it is not ok to regress the gcc case. eg: we did the same with gcc in the early days, or at least made a token effort. eg: you got __asm __inline with gcc, or regular assembler functions if not. It was never complete though. I use clang in general (and WITHOUT_GCC), but not on lower end machines like Atom boxes. They don't have AES-NI anyway. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV bitcoin:188ZjyYLFJiEheQZw4UtU27e2FMLmuRBUE