Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 10:39:02 -0700 From: Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD Message-ID: <AANLkTik-BZu7AHTCl2yayYZ1y1-z0dfaEyH4FsaNvp_F@mail.gmail.com> 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, May 31, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Mike Jakubik < mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com> wrote: > On 5/31/2010 3:52 AM, Roman Divacky wrote: > >> Clang can compile all of FreeBSD on i386/amd64 including world and booting >> kernel. Other architectures that are close to working are MIPS, PowerPC >> and ARM. We have a branch (clangbsd-import) that just includes clang/LLVM >> sources and the build infrastructure and this is what we aim to integrate >> at first. >> >> > What about the thousands of ports? Also, have there been any tests done to > compare the performance of the compiled binaries vs gcc? > What about the ports? Lots of ports already have dependencies on GCC from ports as they don't build/run properly with GCC 4.2.1. How is this any different? There have been reports on other lists from people using Clang to build their ports, with very few failures. It's a "simple" matter to add a dependency on GCC from ports for those that do fail. Which is already being done for ports that don't work with GCC 4.2.1. Several -exp runs have already been done on the ports tree using Clang. No idea about benchmarks. -- Freddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTik-BZu7AHTCl2yayYZ1y1-z0dfaEyH4FsaNvp_F>