Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?)

From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky_at_freebsd.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:02:55 +0100
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 06:33:53AM -0800, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
> 
> > From: Roman Divacky
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 07:22:38PM -0800, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
> > > FWIW,
> > > 
> > > I had some informal talk with brooks_at_ about this at EuroBSDCon:
> > > 
> > > - groff(1) needs a C++ compiler so clang is not (yet) an option? for the time 
> > being we will have to live with GCC or llvm-gcc.
> > 
> > I guess once the switch happens we are going to live for some with both
> > gcc and clang/llvm. I also guess that by the time the switch happens
> > clang is going to be full C++ capable :)
> 
> I think it's more realistic to move to gcc-llvm first and then to clang: testing gcc-llvm helps?test the llvm capabilities?that clang will require to be a viable replacement. In any case, before doing such a thing an experimental run of the ports tree with?the alternative compiler?would prove very valuable to the developers.

I have already asked pav_at_ about this but I am waiting for clang to implement two
features (designated initializers and wchars)...

about the llvm-gcc... I dont know... it looks like a dead end to me...
Received on Sat Jan 10 2009 - 15:03:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:40 UTC