Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD

On Thursday 03 June 2010 8:52:36 pm Mark Linimon wrote:
> 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.

I actually think that a realistic future may be that some archs use clang/llvm 
and some other archs still use gcc (probably with an option to use a gplv3 
toolchain even, just not shipped by default perhaps).  I even think it would 
be useful to have the option to use the latest gplv3 toolchain for amd64/i386 
for folks who want to use it.

-- 
John Baldwin