Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:37:10 -0500 From: "Isaac (.ike) Levy" <ike@blackskyresearch.net> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how long to keep support for gcc on x86? Message-ID: <1358138282-2386446.18050069.fr0E4bAqb011623@rs149.luxsci.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGE5yCpaGV0Jg9_XwfJ0bmn2zbcNy1R4ADGDOnj4YPugGr=DXg@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130112233147.GK1410@funkthat.com> <20130113014242.GA61609@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CAJ-VmomrSFXcZg%2BKj6C2ARhpmjB9hxZATYJyRZB7-eRrcBLprg@mail.gmail.com> <20130113053725.GL1410@funkthat.com> <CAJ-VmomGKayr-1VucfwgodhXEHrXxx8r=9crHZJf74iVKZyTmQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130113202952.GO1410@funkthat.com> <CAGE5yCpB8dHLn0TaW=r0Ov39owOQVi=X5FFw%2BuQ=qZ9zYi5anA@mail.gmail.com> <20130113224800.GS1410@funkthat.com> <50F33B02.6040303@freebsd.org> <CAJ-Vmo=wz0Z5q27QDaxT7jskBoO9vG_BNwRNA6xizhmSmU-aEA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGE5yCoFgC02qYfgAmA6Apd7Q3CrOOGnPAVT-Jbk13iw_Cmw2Q@mail.gmail.com> <1358132522-7259997.45478983.fr0E31thR008892@rs149.luxsci.com> <CAGE5yCpaGV0Jg9_XwfJ0bmn2zbcNy1R4ADGDOnj4YPugGr=DXg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 13, 2013, at 10:59 PM, Peter Wemm wrote: >> 32 bit x86 >=20 > Sure, but how many of these have the new AES-NI stuff? Hrm, I *believe* the Geode CPU's on a number of the PcEngines ALIX = boards actually do, and the Soekris 5501 seems to as well. > And even if they did, the default 10.x compiler would support it. Can't confirm that (yet), but I'll bet it's AOK. -- On Jan 13, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Warner Losh wrote: >> Please also note that people can and will compile FreeBSD on a >> non-default-system compiler ; so deprecating gcc (either support or >> framework) should be considered carefully. >=20 >=20 > When this was talked about at the clang summit, the overwhelming = opinion expressed was "better with clang". Those words made this sysadmin very, very happy. I'm so excited using = clang and want it everywhere, but I also like sleeping at night while we = get there. > If you can make things better with clang, great. However, gcc still = must work. Along the "better with clang" lines, it seems reasonable enough that: - this new AES-NI functionality could build under clang, if, - the new AES-NI functionality could merely not build under gcc, yet gcc = still yields a functional kernel/world/etc=85 Is this bad, bending "better with clang" stick, or is this a reasonable = move, in the right spirit? It's not like a popular ethernet interface = won't compile... Best, .ike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1358138282-2386446.18050069.fr0E4bAqb011623>