Peter Pentchev wrote:
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 11:51:52PM +0300, Andrius Mork??nas wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2010 10:25:22 +0300, Yuri <y...@rawbw.com> wrote:
Having tried clang++ I have a feeling that it's not quite ready to be a
generic c++ compiler.
[snip]
Very immature.
Many problems that C++ ports have with clang is not related to it being
immature, they're related to the fact that clang isn't gcc and that
those ports aren't written in standard C++.
Too true.
I can understand from a commercial perspective why having a permissive
licensed production compiler could be good.. I can understand why many
people don't like gcc or fsf, but what does the BSD community get?
1) Performance?
2) Robustness?
3) ... ?
What's really the goal here? What problem are you working to solve?
May I humbly say that building software with a different compiler in
itself doesn't really accomplish anything.
Starting early can give valuable feedback , but without actually having
the resources to follow-up it's wasted effort. Is llvm at the point
where it can self host BSD? If not why not start there? Maybe identify
the most used applications..
I don't waste time on front-end work though so this is of course my
humble opinion..
./C
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
