Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:15:00 -0500 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Cc: Kevin Wilcox <kevin.wilcox@gmail.com>, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) Message-ID: <200901141315.04020.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20090114175228.GA54368@freebsd.org> References: <20090113044111.134EC1CC0B@ptavv.es.net> <20090114172033.GA29254@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <20090114175228.GA54368@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 14 January 2009 12:52 pm, Roman Divacky wrote: > > advantage. If it appears at some moment that llvm works well and > > produces code as fast as gcc, for all the platforms of interest > > for the FreeBSD people, i have no doubt that they will switch > > immediately. But one of the aims of > > the day is already here... llvm produces roughly the same quality > of code and it has promises of delivering even much better code in > near future. > > llvm does not have to maintain 20 years old cruft and is based on > modern development methods. > > there are even reports of llvm producing significantly better code > (for bzip2 iirc etc.) ATM, one of the biggest problems I see with LLVM+Clang is it is not self-hosting as it is almost entirely written in C++. I think buildworld is one of the most important requirements of FreeBSD project, IMHO. Sorry to jump in here, BTW. Jung-uk Kim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200901141315.04020.jkim>