Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:24:02 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how long to keep support for gcc on x86? Message-ID: <20130113132402.GR2561@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CAGE5yCoT4NZ2ULS60oZTXhQGgTbLRMZRvHmzioS7ToK9L8aZ_A@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> <CAGE5yCoT4NZ2ULS60oZTXhQGgTbLRMZRvHmzioS7ToK9L8aZ_A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--en9/O5YN3eJ0yPaf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:09:09AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > > Thus I think adding clang-only code to the system right now is very, > > very premature. There still seem to be reasons to run systems on GCC > > instead of clang. >=20 > I don't have a problem with it so long as the system isn't *broken* if > you're not using clang. ie: if the status-quo is maintained for gcc > systems and g-faster bits are enabled with clang. It's fine to > provide incentives to try clang, but it is not ok to regress the gcc > case. Absolutely agree. Please note that in the AES-NI case, gcc 'support' is only partially gcc issue, if gcc at all. Our 2.17 gas does not know about AES-NI mnemonics and cannot assemble them. AFAIR the patch uses C built-in for AES-NI and SSE3 or 4, which I think could be implemented manually in the amount needed for the patch, for old gcc. >=20 > eg: we did the same with gcc in the early days, or at least made a > token effort. eg: you got __asm __inline with gcc, or regular > assembler functions if not. It was never complete though. >=20 > I use clang in general (and WITHOUT_GCC), but not on lower end > machines like Atom boxes. They don't have AES-NI anyway. --en9/O5YN3eJ0yPaf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQ8rVwAAoJEJDCuSvBvK1BbcMQAJsAXyPX490PyqybhYkyKaui Wrh02YluVeWtQcZS9Y420/YdOzjjcEh3L69vqFaTSzI07HMvQAs95p0AmtrwLTq0 i1HhoRCcxIhXpw6M1IZtoy0QU+GW3jFaliUgWfUxUbjnS+L3jPp1ZXolovxIE2J2 R90hkLOML3mDSMyp3lGWArAAfmNAr45E94XawZ67PqWT/tXqqYrbNqhHytcEWbH+ 1Yv76JFpiLAxewblCZ64u53mynHOrbUPza4fbDMP4vwic8K/zZ8xgF91UNrgOiGH /DkF7iIhdIXeABIb66LLIkzpVDUUrgjUVOOtymgEU8HaSotM+1zt/16BeLUqLPdE u/EQdwn3sSANQbx6G44B4slTeV9a0TOpq2+hm0RueDjhpNKoPWiaGSKQJlA5mXAE PNYVy7vjtjZTXPO2QVxQS6Eehnim0RWfBe8INi04AzUDVolkethoXd8eu6ZnkiBG brsGbxDKOKnCZvVSMG/+3Wz16tGk3BmoprYmXawR9vMZUP6yYyVptcSUhdPBVhoq Qd7ye6sH2IcFzI+WuZopG5JNGdl+rMegEfk6ttvX4+XN3VJQfKsYwX7V/vIW1+0Q Im3hcnj9UtlimVi5OgGGVO+Qe1GHErl4vyEjzClE3/hcfnaavVVuty3Lo0MX5pqv 3U+rTcIY3axr39UsYalk =eCDJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --en9/O5YN3eJ0yPaf--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130113132402.GR2561>