Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 17:38:07 +0700 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22C=2E_Bergstr=F6m=22?= <cbergstrom@pathscale.com> To: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> Cc: yuri@rawbw.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Andrius Mork??nas <hinokind@gmail.com> Subject: Re: GSoC: Making ports work with clang Message-ID: <4BDEA78F.90303@pathscale.com> In-Reply-To: <20100503092213.GA1294@straylight.m.ringlet.net> References: <op.vb0w1zrh43o42p@klevas> <4BDD28E2.8010201@rawbw.com> <op.vb3iwpzw43o42p@klevas> <20100503092213.GA1294@straylight.m.ringlet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 11:51:52PM +0300, Andrius Mork??nas wrote: > >> On Sun, 02 May 2010 10:25:22 +0300, Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> wrote: >> >>> Having tried clang++ I have a feeling that it's not quite ready to be a >>> generic c++ compiler. >>> > [snip] > >>> Very immature. >>> >> Many problems that C++ ports have with clang is not related to it being >> immature, they're related to the fact that clang isn't gcc and that >> those ports aren't written in standard C++. >> > > Too true. > I can understand from a commercial perspective why having a permissive licensed production compiler could be good.. I can understand why many people don't like gcc or fsf, but what does the BSD community get? 1) Performance? 2) Robustness? 3) ... ? What's really the goal here? What problem are you working to solve? May I humbly say that building software with a different compiler in itself doesn't really accomplish anything. Starting early can give valuable feedback , but without actually having the resources to follow-up it's wasted effort. Is llvm at the point where it can self host BSD? If not why not start there? Maybe identify the most used applications.. I don't waste time on front-end work though so this is of course my humble opinion.. ./C
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BDEA78F.90303>