From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jan 15 13:01:40 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5371A1065672
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:01:40 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru)
Received: from 0.mx.codelabs.ru (0.mx.codelabs.ru [144.206.177.45])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0201C8FC17
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:01:39 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=one; d=codelabs.ru;
	h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:Sender;
	b=SdhD+904foOFgjbKhcUUieLK8ykj8yC+/OcBNgdYHURUk7UOR1Lwl4YhTteeoZaIR5BmrrhdiAuLFvEsMbrW9CNTx8GNm4JVpsA6iBWIIcMbzIT0A43Kiq6hB+e2vrA9244va1f1fxLcY2AtXSub6V4eEpTwSd4QGPBd5K4tpg8=;
Received: from void.codelabs.ru (void.codelabs.ru [144.206.177.25])
	by 0.mx.codelabs.ru with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	id 1LNRqs-000DhF-Gh; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:01:38 +0300
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:01:37 +0300
From: Eygene Ryabinkin <rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru>
To: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <f0UcTFwaZMH9mCkc5RJuLDoBmtA@HEwlnNW4tuDdZ1V6ihYwW3pQ/cw>
References: <496F0D1D.7080505@andric.com>
	<6c51dbb10901150344s409cd834p3cd8fae189e42a68@mail.gmail.com>
	<9225949D37F24E01AA5FC01169A256F2@PegaPegII>
	<20090115122805.GA48561@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090115122805.GA48561@freebsd.org>
Sender: rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru
Cc: Pegasus Mc Cleaft <ken@mthelicon.com>,
	FuLLBLaSTstorm <fullblaststorm@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become
	standardcompiler?)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru
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: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:01:40 -0000

Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 01:28:05PM +0100, Roman Divacky wrote:
> 2) llvm uses special "bytecode" that gets compiled into native machine
> code so technically speaking "classic" assembler is not needed for llvm/clang.

Hmm, what about assembly statements inside C sources or pure assembler
sources?  May be my definition of a "classic" differs from yours, but
for we need assembler at least for the .S files.  Do you mean that some
supplementary assembler should be added to the llvm/clang suite?
-- 
Eygene
 _                ___       _.--.   #
 \`.|\..----...-'`   `-._.-'_.-'`   #  Remember that it is hard
 /  ' `         ,       __.--'      #  to read the on-line manual
 )/' _/     \   `-_,   /            #  while single-stepping the kernel.
 `-'" `"\_  ,_.-;_.-\_ ',  fsc/as   #
     _.-'_./   {_.'   ; /           #    -- FreeBSD Developers handbook
    {_.-``-'         {_/            #