Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 07:56:18 -0700 From: Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how long to keep support for gcc on x86? Message-ID: <1358175378.32417.49.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <CAGE5yCoK-e%2BLxGZofy49xGFVk9p87FfNTXVgpU1UA1Gb%2B9fU2w@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130112233147.GK1410@funkthat.com> <20130113014242.GA61609@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CAJ-VmomrSFXcZg%2BKj6C2ARhpmjB9hxZATYJyRZB7-eRrcBLprg@mail.gmail.com> <20130113053725.GL1410@funkthat.com> <CAJ-VmomGKayr-1VucfwgodhXEHrXxx8r=9crHZJf74iVKZyTmQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130113202952.GO1410@funkthat.com> <CAGE5yCpB8dHLn0TaW=r0Ov39owOQVi=X5FFw%2BuQ=qZ9zYi5anA@mail.gmail.com> <20130113224800.GS1410@funkthat.com> <50F33B02.6040303@freebsd.org> <CAJ-Vmo=wz0Z5q27QDaxT7jskBoO9vG_BNwRNA6xizhmSmU-aEA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGE5yCoFgC02qYfgAmA6Apd7Q3CrOOGnPAVT-Jbk13iw_Cmw2Q@mail.gmail.com> <1358131900.32417.44.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <CAGE5yCoK-e%2BLxGZofy49xGFVk9p87FfNTXVgpU1UA1Gb%2B9fU2w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2013-01-13 at 19:56 -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Ian Lepore > <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 2013-01-13 at 16:58 -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> > ... ? > >> > > >> > As an embedded platform, I'd expect that people will want to support > >> > any feature which dramatically boosts performance whilst reducing CPU. > >> > > >> > Also, if Intel decide to keep trying to push low power x86 for mobile > >> > applications, rather than ARM, x86 may just make a resurgence in > >> > places you once thought were servers. > >> > > >> > 32 bit x86 isn't legacy and won't be for a long time to come. > >> > >> Our buildworld environment and embedded $everything isn't well known > >> for being embedded friendly. I'd wager that if somebody was trying to > >> use an i386 kernel in an embedded device where every last thing > >> counted, they'd be using an external toolchain targeted for their > >> platform and some very selective cross-building. Compiler of > >> $your_choice would be on the table if you were doing external > >> compiling, and.. the default in-tree compiler does support AES-NI on > >> both i386 and amd64, and the logical other choice (gcc-4.6+ and > >> binutils) also does. > > > > Ummm. Search for "industrial single board computer." They're not rare. > > Lots of us build products around them. Some of us use FreeBSD to do so, > > with the stock toolchain. I sure hope support for 32 bit x86 isn't > > fading away any time soon. > > I had a quick look. Yes, there were quite a few devices, but I didn't > find any 32bit-only that had AES-NI. Ah, I guess I misunderstood the point. Talk of removing gcc support just because clang is available is still a bit scary to me. I anticipate using gcc for quite a while, waiting for the rest of the world to shake out the obscure clang bugs (I'll be doing my part to shake out bugs elsewhere in the system). I'm not a huge gcc fan so much as it being "the devil I know." It's hard enough bringing up new software on new hardware; if you have to start suspecting unknown bugs in your toolchain as well it becomes an intractable problem. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1358175378.32417.49.camel>