Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:19:26 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <op.wf5ouoik34t2sn@tech304> In-Reply-To: <CAH3a3KWKNF5Bt-8=KgtbMh=rV6GfUO7OaeE6-SutxkcRe8cG3Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <CAH3a3KWKNF5Bt-8=KgtbMh=rV6GfUO7OaeE6-SutxkcRe8cG3Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:14:25 -0500, Fred Morcos <fred.morcos@gmail.com> wrote: > I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to > the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct? Yes, 4.2.1 is the latest we can use. Also, I have no idea what version of Clang Michael is using on OSX. That tag means nothing to me; for all I know that really could be back in Clang 2.1 days which makes this exercise pointless. We need to be comparing at a minimum the very latest Clang to GCC 4.2.1. Further benchmarks against the latest GCC is welcome, but we should care more about not having a huge performance regression in comparison to what GCC 4.2.1 already provides us.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wf5ouoik34t2sn>