Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 20:03:34 +0300 From: =?utf-8?B?QW5kcml1cyBNb3JrxatuYXM=?= <hinokind@gmail.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "Mike Jakubik" <mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com> Subject: Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD Message-ID: <op.vdkxn7q643o42p@klevas> In-Reply-To: <4C03DB6E.7020903@intertainservices.com> References: <20100531075248.GA15206@freebsd.org> <4C03DB6E.7020903@intertainservices.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 May 2010 18:53:18 +0300, Mike Jakubik <mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com> wrote: > What about the thousands of ports? Also, have there been any tests done > to compare the performance of the compiled binaries vs gcc? This import is in no way directly related to ports. Somehow people have this weird idea that clang is replacing gcc, it isn't. For now ports will be compiled with gcc just like they were before. There are people working on getting ports to compile with clang, but that's a different project[1][2], and in my opinion, is somewhat offtopic for the current discussion. As for performance, I'm not sure. I wouldn't expect clang compiled binaries to be significantly faster/slower than gcc ones. [1] http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang [2] http://wiki.freebsd.org/SOC2010AndriusMorkunas -- Andrius
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.vdkxn7q643o42p>