On 16/03/17 09:30, Erik Christiansen wrote: > Reply-To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org > > On 16.03.17 08:54, David Brown wrote: >> It might be a little heretical to ask here, but has anyone tried out the >> experimental AVR backend in the latest llvm/clang release? I have not >> made much use of clang, but it's been good for gcc to have a bit of >> friendly competition. I think it will be interesting to see how >> clang/llvm differs from gcc for the AVR. > > No, I haven't tried it. As even gcc backend support moves at a sedate > pace, I'm moved to wonder who works on the llvm avr backend? > > Your move to discover what user base it has is a good one, but after a > couple of decades of using gcc on multiple targets, I'm probably rusted > on to the toolchain which has served me so well for so long in so many > battles. >
I don't really know anything about the llvm AVR backend, or who is working on it - I just saw it described in the release notes for llvm 4.0. I too have been using gcc on a range of targets for something like 20 years (building a gcc cross-compiler for the 68k running on Windows was not an easy job in those days!), and I haven't had any new projects for the AVR for a good while. But I am always interested to see if alternatives suit my needs better - if llvm/clang can do a better job for me than gcc, I'm as loyal as a cat. _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
