Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:09:09 -0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how long to keep support for gcc on x86? Message-ID: <CAGE5yCoT4NZ2ULS60oZTXhQGgTbLRMZRvHmzioS7ToK9L8aZ_A@mail.gmail.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
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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. 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. 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. I use clang in general (and WITHOUT_GCC), but not on lower end machines like Atom boxes. They don't have AES-NI anyway. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV bitcoin:188ZjyYLFJiEheQZw4UtU27e2FMLmuRBUE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGE5yCoT4NZ2ULS60oZTXhQGgTbLRMZRvHmzioS7ToK9L8aZ_A>