From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 14 14:56:28 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 38F3A57B; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:56:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Received: from duck.symmetricom.us (duck.symmetricom.us [206.168.13.214]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39A7D9A; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:56:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from damnhippie.dyndns.org (daffy.symmetricom.us [206.168.13.218]) by duck.symmetricom.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0EEuKQm028038; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 07:56:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Received: from [172.22.42.240] (revolution.hippie.lan [172.22.42.240]) by damnhippie.dyndns.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r0EEuIUV002126; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 07:56:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Subject: Re: how long to keep support for gcc on x86? From: Ian Lepore To: Peter Wemm In-Reply-To: References: <20130112233147.GK1410@funkthat.com> <20130113014242.GA61609@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20130113053725.GL1410@funkthat.com> <20130113202952.GO1410@funkthat.com> <20130113224800.GS1410@funkthat.com> <50F33B02.6040303@freebsd.org> <1358131900.32417.44.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 07:56:18 -0700 Message-ID: <1358175378.32417.49.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Adrian Chadd , Nathan Whitehorn , 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: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:56:28 -0000 On Sun, 2013-01-13 at 19:56 -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Ian Lepore > wrote: > > On Sun, 2013-01-13 at 16:58 -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> > ... ? > >> > > >> > As an embedded platform, I'd expect that people will want to support > >> > any feature which dramatically boosts performance whilst reducing CPU. > >> > > >> > Also, if Intel decide to keep trying to push low power x86 for mobile > >> > applications, rather than ARM, x86 may just make a resurgence in > >> > places you once thought were servers. > >> > > >> > 32 bit x86 isn't legacy and won't be for a long time to come. > >> > >> Our buildworld environment and embedded $everything isn't well known > >> for being embedded friendly. I'd wager that if somebody was trying to > >> use an i386 kernel in an embedded device where every last thing > >> counted, they'd be using an external toolchain targeted for their > >> platform and some very selective cross-building. Compiler of > >> $your_choice would be on the table if you were doing external > >> compiling, and.. the default in-tree compiler does support AES-NI on > >> both i386 and amd64, and the logical other choice (gcc-4.6+ and > >> binutils) also does. > > > > Ummm. Search for "industrial single board computer." They're not rare. > > Lots of us build products around them. Some of us use FreeBSD to do so, > > with the stock toolchain. I sure hope support for 32 bit x86 isn't > > fading away any time soon. > > I had a quick look. Yes, there were quite a few devices, but I didn't > find any 32bit-only that had AES-NI. Ah, I guess I misunderstood the point. Talk of removing gcc support just because clang is available is still a bit scary to me. I anticipate using gcc for quite a while, waiting for the rest of the world to shake out the obscure clang bugs (I'll be doing my part to shake out bugs elsewhere in the system). I'm not a huge gcc fan so much as it being "the devil I know." It's hard enough bringing up new software on new hardware; if you have to start suspecting unknown bugs in your toolchain as well it becomes an intractable problem. -- Ian