Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 21:15:05 +0700 From: =?UTF-8?B?IkMuIEJlcmdzdHLDtm0i?= <cbergstrom@pathscale.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Permissive licensed toolchain Message-ID: <4C0272E9.8020800@pathscale.com> In-Reply-To: <45C1FA95-C9A3-41EA-9E3A-61E35C7F6AD1@cederstrand.dk> References: <op.vb0w1zrh43o42p@klevas> <4BDD28E2.8010201@rawbw.com> <httjse$4ee$1@dough.gmane.org> <op.vdirbroh43o42p@klevas> <45C1FA95-C9A3-41EA-9E3A-61E35C7F6AD1@cederstrand.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi What's the real status of a fully permissive licensed toolchain? 1) Benchmarks - (I mean emperical evidence on FBSD and per target with no anecdotal comments or speculation.. I admit benchmarks can actually be misleading since many companies optimize for them specifically) 2) Has anyone tested clang++ with libc++ or stdcxx? (In my tests I hit some build problems with Apache stdcxx) 3) Which assembler is being used? 4) Which linker is being used? What's the best way to make a plan which will get feedback if someone wanted to try alternative approach to the above? Thanks ./C
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C0272E9.8020800>