Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:28:05 +0100 From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> To: Pegasus Mc Cleaft <ken@mthelicon.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, FuLLBLaSTstorm <fullblaststorm@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standardcompiler?) Message-ID: <20090115122805.GA48561@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <9225949D37F24E01AA5FC01169A256F2@PegaPegII> References: <496F0D1D.7080505@andric.com> <6c51dbb10901150344s409cd834p3cd8fae189e42a68@mail.gmail.com> <9225949D37F24E01AA5FC01169A256F2@PegaPegII>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I dont know clang, llvm, pcc, etc. very well, but.. Would this solve our > problem where we will still need an assembler, linker, archiver, et al? 1) clang and llvm are not two choices :) it's one 2) llvm uses special "bytecode" that gets compiled into native machine code so technically speaking "classic" assembler is not needed for llvm/clang. the chain with clang is: clang -> llvm bc -> native binary you can get the (human readable) assembler if you want to (I think) but it's not necessary the same goes with linker etc.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090115122805.GA48561>