From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 13 22:26:41 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B7AE8E5 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:26:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com (mail-vc0-f173.google.com [209.85.220.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4305221B for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:26:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id f13so3005573vcb.18 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:26:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wemm.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=w8phwmwlG8RO3RSNaeyuEnH4He+HjwkTDky+WzFy+Os=; b=UlajoHRIlGxv70ds8M1mm6Z4K4GSz3lbjSS1adJ6R8bzWv6zxq3sc0sxoYniV7Y7Xn 1SDr4CT8bv/pjBFMBTi790K4OTiI8umsAACEsHo8uiZLRw3jsHEopRmgGE5tB3753Wpo xNdFrjIA8kjo7gXhrWJed7pL2XZ4ncy8a7He8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=w8phwmwlG8RO3RSNaeyuEnH4He+HjwkTDky+WzFy+Os=; b=CQndBhuzlDdqGbvhoP4eJp/D5OGeB7ya/vW7fTOCdOo8m8ppzxokAuBKfNzusYAPO8 AP9nOGQ762c9X8c01Dkd/SmygznA48FIimPV852zbt2bRFWIndwR57bHChoiYYI7lRwX 2OA5vNZAhJDCnmrhXE8avExCrKuIfumHiTkxwIH4gpkFbP48vm9vnU2NjRRD24Yj9iJf YshLZLD1phN60bj1+CFaehm4X8OoGWo/su9cMHB7o/pt6tYlq1xl24onviw3Xbe0Nh1r pRQl/dWwtX34S4WUlWKYYEd5OuyjSp3d+v4/pT4i6k702BTPJeDy07T/UszKC2MKLftA unOw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.209.74 with SMTP id gf10mr99001908vcb.10.1358116000204; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:26:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.174.135 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:26:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20130113202952.GO1410@funkthat.com> References: <20130112233147.GK1410@funkthat.com> <20130113014242.GA61609@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20130113053725.GL1410@funkthat.com> <20130113202952.GO1410@funkthat.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:26:40 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: how long to keep support for gcc on x86? From: Peter Wemm To: Adrian Chadd , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkSQ4GMpjYFoaGzxq+0jx5L6yGZfzb1DhHKmL2Sh8PysUvvFdqPk3eNFvPluQTGInF229ck X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:26:41 -0000 On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:29 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Adrian Chadd wrote this message on Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 23:44 -0800: >> >> People are still ironing out kinks/differences with clang. Anyone >> saying otherwise is likely pushing an agenda. :-) >> >> 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. >> >> If you have a need for new instruction support, perhaps look at adding >> it to our base GCC for the time being? > > I did look at it briefly, but I don't know gcc's internals, and it would > take me 5+ hours to do it, while someone who does know gcc would take > abount a half an hour (just a guess)... I don't have the free time I > used to, otherwise I would of done it by now.. It seems to me that since clang is the default compiler for the platforms that have AES-NI that the following could be done: * get the inline AES-NI stuff in and debugged and solid. * .. without breaking the existing gcc-compatible code * once the support is solid, decide what the appropriate thing to do for gcc is. .. so long as the existing code doesn't get broken. Trying to do backwards compatibility port to gcc with a moving target has potential to be a work multiplier. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV bitcoin:188ZjyYLFJiEheQZw4UtU27e2FMLmuRBUE