Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 14:38:35 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com> To: =?UTF-8?B?IkMuIEJlcmdzdHLDtm0i?= <cbergstrom@pathscale.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, yuri@rawbw.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcml1cyBNb3JrxatuYXM=?= <hinokind@gmail.com> Subject: Re: GSoC: Making ports work with clang Message-ID: <4BDEC3CB.4@andric.com> In-Reply-To: <4BDEB154.8060104@pathscale.com> References: <op.vb0w1zrh43o42p@klevas> <4BDD28E2.8010201@rawbw.com> <op.vb3iwpzw43o42p@klevas> <20100503092213.GA1294@straylight.m.ringlet.net> <4BDEA78F.90303@pathscale.com> <4BDEA926.4030900@andric.com> <4BDEB154.8060104@pathscale.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2010-05-03 13:19, "C. Bergstr=C3=B6m" wrote: >> Of course it does. It forces you to make your software portable. >> =20 > and your point is? >=20 > Are you trying to say that s/building/porting/ between compilers is=20 > going to magically make the software (have less bugs, more performance = > or better robustness) No, it gives you the choice of which compiler to use. > Porting could be a means-to-an-end, but still=20 > it's not an end goal.. I'm digging at what's the end goal.. After it's = > all ported what magically happens? You can then switch compilers freely, or at least, without too much effort.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BDEC3CB.4>