From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 23 12:59:37 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555331DA; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:59:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A044A2551; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:59:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id PAA28416; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:59:34 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1VCqxh-000PaQ-Md; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:59:33 +0300 Message-ID: <52175C7E.4050201@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:58:38 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130810 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nathan Whitehorn Subject: Re: patch to add AES intrinsics to gcc References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com> <105E26EE-8471-49D3-AB57-FBE2779CF8D0@FreeBSD.org> <5CE4B5FA-9DA0-45E4-8D67-161E0829FE6B@FreeBSD.org> <52173C8D.20608@freebsd.org> <521754E6.3030906@FreeBSD.org> <521756C5.6050502@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <521756C5.6050502@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: toolchain@FreeBSD.org, David Chisnall , current@FreeBSD.org, "re@FreeBSD.org Engineering Team" X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:59:37 -0000 on 23/08/2013 15:34 Nathan Whitehorn said the following: > On 08/23/13 07:26, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 23/08/2013 14:06 David Chisnall said the following: >>> Our gcc is from 2007. It has no C11, no C++11 support. It has bugs in its >>> atomic generation so you can't use it sensibly without lots of inline >>> assembly (which it doesn't support for newer architectures) for >>> multithreaded things. >>> >>> Our libstdc++ is ancient and doesn't work with modern C++ codebases. >> On the other hand these tools are perfect for building FreeBSD kernel and base. >> Extrapolating my experience with base GCC I am very confident in it as a >> FreeBSD development tool. >> Extrapolating my experience with Clang I am not yet confident in it as a >> FreeBSD development tool. >> > > This isn't even true. It's been true for me. > As CPUs gain new features, the set of available intrinsics > gets more and more ancient, requiring ever more patching, workarounds, and > #ifdef. Just look at the original subject of this thread! Yes. I am more comfortable with incremental changes. Bugs in those can be pinpointed quite easily and I do not affect those who don't use the new features. > We're just talking about the default of a make.conf setting here. Switching to > clang is a long-term goal of the project for good reason. I agree. > Other vendors (Apple, > for instance) have made the plunge first. This seems like as good a time as any > to do it. And if it goes wrong somehow, we have lots of BETAs and it is trivial > to change back at any time. I am totally comfortable with clang being default in head. I am also comfortable with gcc not being built by default in head. I am not yet comfortable with clang being default in a release. Even .0 one. JIMHO, it needs to age a little bit more. -- Andriy Gapon