Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:29:52 -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: <20130113202952.GO1410@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmomGKayr-1VucfwgodhXEHrXxx8r=9crHZJf74iVKZyTmQ@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Adrian Chadd wrote this message on Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 23:44 -0800:
>
> People are still ironing out kinks/differences with clang. Anyone
> saying otherwise is likely pushing an agenda. :-)
>
> 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.
>
> If you have a need for new instruction support, perhaps look at adding
> it to our base GCC for the time being?
I did look at it briefly, but I don't know gcc's internals, and it would
take me 5+ hours to do it, while someone who does know gcc would take
abount a half an hour (just a guess)... I don't have the free time I
used to, otherwise I would of done it by now..
> Remember, you're not the only consumer of the system. :-)
Hence why I asked.. :)
--
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?20130113202952.GO1410>