Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 11 Sep 2012 06:32:15 -0700
From:      Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
To:        Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk>
Cc:        toolchain@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th
Message-ID:  <20120911133215.GB87126@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
In-Reply-To: <848C813E-E6EC-4FAF-9374-B5583A077404@cederstrand.dk>
References:  <20120910211207.GC64920@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20120911104518.GF37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911120649.GA52235@freebsd.org> <20120911122122.GJ37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911123833.GA54483@freebsd.org> <848C813E-E6EC-4FAF-9374-B5583A077404@cederstrand.dk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:52:20PM +0200, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> Den 11/09/2012 kl. 14.38 skrev Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>:
> > By the nature of "developing the OS" we are forced to use compilers and
> > toolchains. Recently I saw you submitting/committing patches with .byte
> > sequences because our default assembler cant handle the instructions.
> > I saw jhb@ updating binutils to support invept/invvpid.
> > 
> > In my eyes, switching to clang by default lowers the compiler/toolchain
> > maintenance burden we have.
> 
> I agree. Switching away from abandonware to a compiler that
> is actively maintained is a good thing.

Interest twist of history.  GCC is not abandonware.  I can
assure you GCC development is very much alive.  The abandonment
of GCC was a FreeBSD developers/community decision.

-- 
Steve



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120911133215.GB87126>