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>