On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:22:05PM +0100, Bruce Cran wrote: > From previous messages I don't think sparc64 is currently supported by > clang very well, if at all, so I think we'll still need gcc in the base > system for some time. I'll put on my "tier-2 package builder hat" for a moment. IMHO it helps FreeBSD's robustness to have our other architectures. In particular, fixing bugs in sparc64 may be helping us fix bugs that would affect arm/mips/powerpc, which are key for our embedded userbase. Perhaps I'm just invested in this from having spent time on sparc64 ... But a counter-argument is that if the two archs that llvm currently does not support well (sparc64 and ia64) start holding back major progress on amd64/i386, then we should give the most weight to what 90%+ of our userbase is on, and act accordingly. Hopefully that just means "keep gcc as the default for our tier-2 archs." I've been finding it intellectually interesting to work on these, but really, they shouldn't be allowed to hold up the parade. Final note: there is indeed active kernel work on sparc64, ia64, and powerpc, so things are not stalled. mclReceived on Thu Jun 03 2010 - 22:52:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:04 UTC