Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:37:25 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how long to keep support for gcc on x86? Message-ID: <20130113053725.GL1410@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmomrSFXcZg%2BKj6C2ARhpmjB9hxZATYJyRZB7-eRrcBLprg@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130112233147.GK1410@funkthat.com> <20130113014242.GA61609@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CAJ-VmomrSFXcZg%2BKj6C2ARhpmjB9hxZATYJyRZB7-eRrcBLprg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Adrian Chadd wrote this message on Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 19:30 -0800:
> IMHO gcc shuld be available until all of the platforms that we
> currently ship FreeBSD on gets clang support.
Though, we have a very ancient version of gcc, a modern version would
support the AES-NI intrinsicts that I am thinking of using... It's
more of a question of how long do we need to keep support for gcc
4.2.1, not another modern gcc/other compiler...
> This includes MIPS (which is there, but I don't think the default MIPS
> build uses clang at the moment) and ia64, which Marcel has been
> dutifully working on.
>
> 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.
Considering that the icc stuff was recently removed, unless the compiler
has good gcc/clang emulation, I can't see how far another compiler would
get compiling our code...
> On 12 January 2013 17:42, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 03:31:47PM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> >> So, now that -current x86 is defaulting to clang, how much longer do we
> >> need to support gcc on platforms that default to clang?
> >
> > IMHO, gcc should be available until after 10.0 is branched.
> >
> >> I'm asking because clang support AES-NI, but gcc does not...
> >
> > The last and only time I had for testing clang's handling
> > of floating point revealed that clang had a few bugs and
> > performance issues.
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130113053725.GL1410>