From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 29 20:26:34 2009 Return-Path: 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 7902210656FB for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:26:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from smtp8.server.rpi.edu (smtp8.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.228]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF278FC1F for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:26:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp8.server.rpi.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n0TKQUv3026060; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:26:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <49816854.9060909@gmx.de> References: <20090128155340.GA75143@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <7508A5B5-C6D2-498A-AEA1-D84E85F1D743@mac.com> <200901291243.00378.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <49811242.7030106@delphij.net> <498116AB.2060105@gmail.com> <49816854.9060909@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:26:29 -0500 To: Christoph Mallon From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0) X-RPI-SA-Score: 0.60 () [Hold at 20.00] J_CHICKENPOX_43,22490(-25) X-CanItPRO-Stream: outgoing X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 128.113.2.228 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:26:35 -0000 At 9:27 AM +0100 1/29/09, Christoph Mallon wrote: >Eitan Adler schrieb: >>To quote from the FAQ: >>Who does this change affect? >> Nobody who is currently using GCC should be affected by this change. > >Let me repeat that: >"Nobody who is currently using GCC *should* be affected by this change." > >Emphasize mine. There have been a couple of different issues brought up in this thread, and I've lost track of which one we're on. But one of the issues is the use of LLVM+gcc, and my guess is that the above statement would not apply to that. That is just my guess, of course. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu