Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 00:03:06 +0300 From: =?utf-8?B?QW5kcml1cyBNb3JrxatuYXM=?= <hinokind@gmail.com> To: "Eitan Adler" <eitanadlerlist@gmail.com>, yuri@rawbw.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GSoC: Making ports work with clang Message-ID: <op.vb3jfgu543o42p@klevas> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin0yOPIwfeUlNKUBBdTRDqYgAMOV2VzYyYv-SIJ@mail.gmail.com> References: <op.vb0w1zrh43o42p@klevas> <4BDD28E2.8010201@rawbw.com> <AANLkTin0yOPIwfeUlNKUBBdTRDqYgAMOV2VzYyYv-SIJ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 02 May 2010 23:17:00 +0300, Eitan Adler <eitanadlerlist@gmail.com> wrote: > Good - and those 30% of ports will help improve clang++ even more. Some probably will, we submit a lot of bug reports for clang/llvm. > Hopefully over time that number will increase to 100% and we will be > able to say goodbye to gcc for good. That won't happen, at least not anytime soon and not until we get rid of [old] poorly written ports from the ports tree. Another problem is ports using horrible or less horrible GNU extensions for C or C++, clang will not support all of them. So we will still need gcc for some things, just like we need USE_GCC=whatever now, because some ports don't compile with gcc42 from base. I just hope we can get the majority of ports working with clang and keep the number of ports that need gcc as low as possible. -- Andrius
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.vb3jfgu543o42p>