Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:10:44 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: how long to keep support for gcc on x86? Message-ID: <201301141110.44165.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20130113132402.GR2561@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20130112233147.GK1410@funkthat.com> <CAGE5yCoT4NZ2ULS60oZTXhQGgTbLRMZRvHmzioS7ToK9L8aZ_A@mail.gmail.com> <20130113132402.GR2561@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 8:24:02 am Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:09:09AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > I don't have a problem with it so long as the system isn't *broken* if > > you're not using clang. ie: if the status-quo is maintained for gcc > > systems and g-faster bits are enabled with clang. It's fine to > > provide incentives to try clang, but it is not ok to regress the gcc > > case. > Absolutely agree. > > Please note that in the AES-NI case, gcc 'support' is only partially > gcc issue, if gcc at all. Our 2.17 gas does not know about AES-NI > mnemonics and cannot assemble them. It is not but so hard to add new instructions to binutils. I did it recently for the xsave stuff as well the instructions needed by bhyve. How many instructions are you talking about (and which ones)? -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201301141110.44165.jhb>