Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:28:05 +0100 From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> To: Pegasus Mc Cleaft <ken@mthelicon.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, FuLLBLaSTstorm <fullblaststorm@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standardcompiler?) Message-ID: <20090115122805.GA48561@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <9225949D37F24E01AA5FC01169A256F2@PegaPegII> References: <496F0D1D.7080505@andric.com> <6c51dbb10901150344s409cd834p3cd8fae189e42a68@mail.gmail.com> <9225949D37F24E01AA5FC01169A256F2@PegaPegII>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> I dont know clang, llvm, pcc, etc. very well, but.. Would this solve our > problem where we will still need an assembler, linker, archiver, et al? 1) clang and llvm are not two choices :) it's one 2) llvm uses special "bytecode" that gets compiled into native machine code so technically speaking "classic" assembler is not needed for llvm/clang. the chain with clang is: clang -> llvm bc -> native binary you can get the (human readable) assembler if you want to (I think) but it's not necessary the same goes with linker etc.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090115122805.GA48561>