Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 29 May 2013 09:47:52 +0100
From:      David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        amd64@FreeBSD.org, toolchain@FreeBSD.org, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org>, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@felyko.com>
Subject:   Re: [CFT] gcc: support for barcelona
Message-ID:  <C0B4C633-EC1C-41AF-BE57-76B52DF47F52@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <51A5A6F4.8000501@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <51A38CBD.6000702@FreeBSD.org> <E9DC99EF-F2E9-4A5F-8370-36DA25DE2C89@felyko.com> <51A3B8AB.5080808@FreeBSD.org> <521EEFA1-E116-41F5-B618-238E7AA092A8@bsdimp.com> <3C29AD82-077D-4E6B-94C7-5D069A130348__27528.1591726982$1369769859$gmane$org@FreeBSD.org> <51A5A6F4.8000501@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29 May 2013, at 07:57, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> In fact, I am of opinion that while such bugs exist gcc should be =
crowned back
> as a default compiler.

Seriously?  Your show stopper bug is that, very occasionally, clang =
emits incorrect debug info?  And Steve's is that clang emits code that =
is fully compliant with the C standard, but gives more floating point =
precision than he wanted?

If those are the most serious problems we have with clang, then it's =
time to remove gcc 4.2.1 from the tree right now.  I wish the problems =
that we had with it were so trivial...

David




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C0B4C633-EC1C-41AF-BE57-76B52DF47F52>