From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 22 01:38:46 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260C61065670 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:38:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D0E8FC13 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:38:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from ds4.des.no (des.no [84.49.246.2]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5FE6D418; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:38:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E4F36844B5; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:38:44 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: "Shaowei Wang \(wsw\)" References: <2e566b9e0907202134h5568a06bl33a8d95ac9c7f845@mail.gmail.com> <20090721131735.GA18929@freebsd.org> <2e566b9e0907211818k1a52ef7am5c681a6f4ffc868c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:38:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: <2e566b9e0907211818k1a52ef7am5c681a6f4ffc868c@mail.gmail.com> (Shaowei Wang's message of "Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:18:46 +0800") Message-ID: <864ot5jy3f.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Roman Divacky , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: llvm/clang a tool chain or just a compiler for FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:38:46 -0000 "Shaowei Wang (wsw)" writes: > So what's the direction? Are we going to cut off all the GNU compiler > tool chains and use the llvm/clang when it's mature. Who's "we"? Anyway, LLVM *isn't* mature, and it probably won't be for years, if ever, so there's no point in asking. If it ever reaches a point where it covers our needs, and it's still under an acceptable license, and somebody sits down and does the work and assumes the responsibility, and portsmgr@ doesn't have a conniption because it breaks half the ports tree, and core@ approves, and a majority of developers approve, including those who think we should run with pcc instead but can't be arsed to do the work, then maybe. At this point, speculating about it is just a waste of time and electrons. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no