Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 06:32:15 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk> Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th Message-ID: <20120911133215.GB87126@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <848C813E-E6EC-4FAF-9374-B5583A077404@cederstrand.dk> References: <20120910211207.GC64920@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20120911104518.GF37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911120649.GA52235@freebsd.org> <20120911122122.GJ37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911123833.GA54483@freebsd.org> <848C813E-E6EC-4FAF-9374-B5583A077404@cederstrand.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:52:20PM +0200, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > Den 11/09/2012 kl. 14.38 skrev Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>: > > By the nature of "developing the OS" we are forced to use compilers and > > toolchains. Recently I saw you submitting/committing patches with .byte > > sequences because our default assembler cant handle the instructions. > > I saw jhb@ updating binutils to support invept/invvpid. > > > > In my eyes, switching to clang by default lowers the compiler/toolchain > > maintenance burden we have. > > I agree. Switching away from abandonware to a compiler that > is actively maintained is a good thing. Interest twist of history. GCC is not abandonware. I can assure you GCC development is very much alive. The abandonment of GCC was a FreeBSD developers/community decision. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120911133215.GB87126>