Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:58:38 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@FreeBSD.org>, toolchain@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, "re@FreeBSD.org Engineering Team" <re@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: patch to add AES intrinsics to gcc Message-ID: <52175C7E.4050201@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <521756C5.6050502@freebsd.org> References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com> <105E26EE-8471-49D3-AB57-FBE2779CF8D0@FreeBSD.org> <CAE-m3X324rbdP_C=az4eO-EkMcR-yFAeRG7S4q%2BMUsnMezGddw@mail.gmail.com> <5CE4B5FA-9DA0-45E4-8D67-161E0829FE6B@FreeBSD.org> <52173C8D.20608@freebsd.org> <D879DDDA-EF9D-470A-A82E-04E83DB2A7E4__13641.8188493282$1377255996$gmane$org@FreeBSD.org> <521754E6.3030906@FreeBSD.org> <521756C5.6050502@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52175C7E.4050201>