From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 14 18:15:19 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135821065736;
	Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:15:18 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org)
From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:15:00 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <20090113044111.134EC1CC0B@ptavv.es.net>
	<20090114172033.GA29254@lpthe.jussieu.fr>
	<20090114175228.GA54368@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090114175228.GA54368@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200901141315.04020.jkim@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?)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:15:20 -0000

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