Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 19:52:36 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> Cc: Astrodog <astrodog@gmail.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD Message-ID: <20100604005236.GF22064@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <20100531132205.00000dd6@unknown> References: <20100529130240.GA99732@freebsd.org> <20100530135859.GI83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <508DA8CE-749A-46B4-AF0B-392DB08CBBCD@samsco.org> <20100531095617.GR83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <AANLkTin-gJ5ehBsIB3c7VCqdivsiKf3kZdwXkod6Lgsf@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikf5hB7An-PgUV7MZmscrAASumw3DEfnleKCvAq@mail.gmail.com> <20100531132205.00000dd6@unknown>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:22:05PM +0100, Bruce Cran wrote: > From previous messages I don't think sparc64 is currently supported by > clang very well, if at all, so I think we'll still need gcc in the base > system for some time. I'll put on my "tier-2 package builder hat" for a moment. IMHO it helps FreeBSD's robustness to have our other architectures. In particular, fixing bugs in sparc64 may be helping us fix bugs that would affect arm/mips/powerpc, which are key for our embedded userbase. Perhaps I'm just invested in this from having spent time on sparc64 ... But a counter-argument is that if the two archs that llvm currently does not support well (sparc64 and ia64) start holding back major progress on amd64/i386, then we should give the most weight to what 90%+ of our userbase is on, and act accordingly. Hopefully that just means "keep gcc as the default for our tier-2 archs." I've been finding it intellectually interesting to work on these, but really, they shouldn't be allowed to hold up the parade. Final note: there is indeed active kernel work on sparc64, ia64, and powerpc, so things are not stalled. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100604005236.GF22064>