Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

From: Steve Kargl <sgk_at_troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 06:32:15 -0700
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:52:20PM +0200, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> Den 11/09/2012 kl. 14.38 skrev Roman Divacky <rdivacky_at_freebsd.org>:
> > By the nature of "developing the OS" we are forced to use compilers and
> > toolchains. Recently I saw you submitting/committing patches with .byte
> > sequences because our default assembler cant handle the instructions.
> > I saw jhb_at_ updating binutils to support invept/invvpid.
> > 
> > In my eyes, switching to clang by default lowers the compiler/toolchain
> > maintenance burden we have.
> 
> I agree. Switching away from abandonware to a compiler that
> is actively maintained is a good thing.

Interest twist of history.  GCC is not abandonware.  I can
assure you GCC development is very much alive.  The abandonment
of GCC was a FreeBSD developers/community decision.

-- 
Steve
Received on Tue Sep 11 2012 - 11:32:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:30 UTC