Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:38:44 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: "Shaowei Wang \(wsw\)" <wsw1wsw2@gmail.com> Cc: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: llvm/clang a tool chain or just a compiler for FreeBSD? Message-ID: <864ot5jy3f.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <2e566b9e0907211818k1a52ef7am5c681a6f4ffc868c@mail.gmail.com> (Shaowei Wang's message of "Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:18:46 %2B0800") References: <2e566b9e0907202134h5568a06bl33a8d95ac9c7f845@mail.gmail.com> <20090721131735.GA18929@freebsd.org> <2e566b9e0907211818k1a52ef7am5c681a6f4ffc868c@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Shaowei Wang (wsw)" <wsw1wsw2@gmail.com> writes: > So what's the direction? Are we going to cut off all the GNU compiler > tool chains and use the llvm/clang when it's mature. Who's "we"? Anyway, LLVM *isn't* mature, and it probably won't be for years, if ever, so there's no point in asking. If it ever reaches a point where it covers our needs, and it's still under an acceptable license, and somebody sits down and does the work and assumes the responsibility, and portsmgr@ doesn't have a conniption because it breaks half the ports tree, and core@ approves, and a majority of developers approve, including those who think we should run with pcc instead but can't be arsed to do the work, then maybe. At this point, speculating about it is just a waste of time and electrons. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?864ot5jy3f.fsf>