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

>    I dont know clang, llvm, pcc, etc. very well, but.. Would this solve our 
> problem where we will still need an assembler, linker, archiver, et al?


1) clang and llvm are not two choices :) it's one

2) llvm uses special "bytecode" that gets compiled into native machine
code so technically speaking "classic" assembler is not needed for llvm/clang.

the chain with clang is: clang -> llvm bc -> native binary

you can get the (human readable) assembler if you want to (I think) but it's
not necessary

the same goes with linker etc.