Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 15:56:26 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@ixsystems.com> Cc: freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Compiler toolchain roadmap Message-ID: <9E11A6D4-9D18-422D-9514-4714AADDAEF4@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <EB9CE8A8-E897-4DE1-A8BC-80C6CC23E612@ixsystems.com> References: <201404021607.s32G7mhw051355@svn.freebsd.org> <20140404115256.GA85137@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <F2A33EA8-14F2-4D62-9021-9023A1751E48@FreeBSD.org> <8D6AF193-A5A3-4A28-A230-97A543395ACA@ixsystems.com> <2E0EC8CB-B3EE-4DB8-A33D-58FD2107F14D@FreeBSD.org> <6A02504F-5543-4F91-92F6-7B4FB9A34DC4@ixsystems.com> <152D73EE-DF9E-4757-B547-F1F22B12C824@FreeBSD.org> <B06E1588-8828-485F-A407-3F19231F8EA5@ixsystems.com> <8E3BD3C1-A441-48C5-97BC-45EF67513096@FreeBSD.org> <6418BE83-BE78-473B-9311-C849507FA885@ixsystems.com> <CAJ-Vmom-19LujsTQ%2Bv4XozE%2BiEH18LMEQitBLC-At=DmsgkB%2BQ@mail.gmail.com> <EB9CE8A8-E897-4DE1-A8BC-80C6CC23E612@ixsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 6, 2014, at 4:16 AM, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@ixsystems.com> wrote: > Now it=92s 2014 and apparently we can=92t have nice things in the tree = because of MIPS? Maybe I=92m over-simplifying the argument, but even = simplistically I would easily understand First off, nobody every said we can=92t have nice things in the tree = because of MIPS. Where was that said? It can=92t possibly be true = because gcc supports blocks in the tree, so there=92s no impediment. = LLVM-based things? Show me the money and bring one to the table and we = can talk, but even then there=92s clang support for mips, so again = that=92s not a big deal. As for numbers, perhaps you are right about mips, perhaps not. There=92s = a thriving community, the code isn=92t holding the tree back, and things = do get fixed there. Maybe not as well as our ARM community, but it still = us. I hear a lot of FUD and chest pounding about how it is holding us = back, but I=92ve yet to see any real evidence of that proffered. Mips = and powerpc are in the tree because Juniper needs/wants them, and has = been contributing fixes to the tree over the years. External toolchain is coming along nicely given the timelines for 11, = which is where we committed to having it done and removing gcc/binutils = from the tree. clang is good, but it isn=92t quite ready for the = binutils removal yet. If the time comes and it isn=92t done, then we can = talk about how mips is holding things up (assuming the clang mips stuff = doesn=92t go in). But until then, show me the concrete examples where = there=92s an actual problem. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9E11A6D4-9D18-422D-9514-4714AADDAEF4>