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