Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:49:13 +0100 From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) Message-ID: <20090114094913.GA70285@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <496DB2FB.6020406@FreeBSD.org> References: <20090113044111.134EC1CC0B@ptavv.es.net> <20090113222023.GA51810@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <496D1ED6.4090202@FreeBSD.org> <200901132356.40820.ken@mthelicon.com> <496D64A0.1090309@FreeBSD.org> <d763ac660901132142m1de92969nf1473e5037e4e439@mail.gmail.com> <496DB2FB.6020406@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> IMHO it seems highly unlikely that some new kid on the block like llvm > will be able to answer our problems. The argument that "it's good for > Apple, it should be good for us" to me seems to be little out of touch > with reality. First of all, Apple cares about significantly lesser > number of architectures. They don't have IA64, Sparc or MIPS, they will > probably drop PPC soon. Second, they have a capacity (read "big money") > to port compiler to a new architecture, fix it as needed or extend it to > support some features provided by never chips if they need to. We don't > have that capacity. llvm currently supports: X86 Sparc PowerPC Alpha IA64 ARM Mips CellSPU PIC16 XCore CBackend MSIL CppBackend
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090114094913.GA70285>