From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 3 10:33:54 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB041065670 for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 10:33:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cbergstrom@pathscale.com) Received: from mail-px0-f182.google.com (mail-px0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 374308FC24 for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 10:33:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pxi11 with SMTP id 11so166582pxi.13 for ; Mon, 03 May 2010 03:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.119.22 with SMTP id r22mr2986503wfc.191.1272882824759; Mon, 03 May 2010 03:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (ppp-58-8-182-179.revip2.asianet.co.th [58.8.182.179]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm4552545pzk.9.2010.05.03.03.33.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 03 May 2010 03:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BDEA78F.90303@pathscale.com> Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 17:38:07 +0700 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22C=2E_Bergstr=F6m=22?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Pentchev References: <4BDD28E2.8010201@rawbw.com> <20100503092213.GA1294@straylight.m.ringlet.net> In-Reply-To: <20100503092213.GA1294@straylight.m.ringlet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: yuri@rawbw.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Andrius Mork??nas Subject: Re: GSoC: Making ports work with clang X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 10:33:54 -0000 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 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