Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:37:10 -0500 From: "Isaac (.ike) Levy" <ike@blackskyresearch.net> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how long to keep support for gcc on x86? Message-ID: <1358138282-2386446.18050069.fr0E4bAqb011623@rs149.luxsci.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGE5yCpaGV0Jg9_XwfJ0bmn2zbcNy1R4ADGDOnj4YPugGr=DXg@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130112233147.GK1410@funkthat.com> <20130113014242.GA61609@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CAJ-VmomrSFXcZg%2BKj6C2ARhpmjB9hxZATYJyRZB7-eRrcBLprg@mail.gmail.com> <20130113053725.GL1410@funkthat.com> <CAJ-VmomGKayr-1VucfwgodhXEHrXxx8r=9crHZJf74iVKZyTmQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130113202952.GO1410@funkthat.com> <CAGE5yCpB8dHLn0TaW=r0Ov39owOQVi=X5FFw%2BuQ=qZ9zYi5anA@mail.gmail.com> <20130113224800.GS1410@funkthat.com> <50F33B02.6040303@freebsd.org> <CAJ-Vmo=wz0Z5q27QDaxT7jskBoO9vG_BNwRNA6xizhmSmU-aEA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGE5yCoFgC02qYfgAmA6Apd7Q3CrOOGnPAVT-Jbk13iw_Cmw2Q@mail.gmail.com> <1358132522-7259997.45478983.fr0E31thR008892@rs149.luxsci.com> <CAGE5yCpaGV0Jg9_XwfJ0bmn2zbcNy1R4ADGDOnj4YPugGr=DXg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 13, 2013, at 10:59 PM, Peter Wemm wrote: >> 32 bit x86 > > Sure, but how many of these have the new AES-NI stuff? Hrm, I *believe* the Geode CPU's on a number of the PcEngines ALIX boards actually do, and the Soekris 5501 seems to as well. > And even if they did, the default 10.x compiler would support it. Can't confirm that (yet), but I'll bet it's AOK. -- On Jan 13, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Warner Losh wrote: >> Please also note that people can and will compile FreeBSD on a >> non-default-system compiler ; so deprecating gcc (either support or >> framework) should be considered carefully. > > > When this was talked about at the clang summit, the overwhelming opinion expressed was "better with clang". Those words made this sysadmin very, very happy. I'm so excited using clang and want it everywhere, but I also like sleeping at night while we get there. > If you can make things better with clang, great. However, gcc still must work. Along the "better with clang" lines, it seems reasonable enough that: - this new AES-NI functionality could build under clang, if, - the new AES-NI functionality could merely not build under gcc, yet gcc still yields a functional kernel/world/etc… Is this bad, bending "better with clang" stick, or is this a reasonable move, in the right spirit? It's not like a popular ethernet interface won't compile... Best, .ike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1358138282-2386446.18050069.fr0E4bAqb011623>