On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Chris Lattner wrote: > 1. The build system is taught about C++ code.
With toplevel bootstrap this will bootstrap libstdc++ so that the compiler ends up linked with the new libstdc++ not the (in general ABI-incompatible) old one? (This question applies to all projects involving C++ in GCC.) > While it has many virtues, LLVM is still not complete, and we are investing in > adding the missing features. In particular, this system is missing two key > features to be truly useful: debug info support and inline asm support. Apple > is currently investing in adding both these features, as well as adding vector > support. What (on any one target of your choice) is the GCC testsuite status when LLVM-enabled, compared to that without LLVM, and are most of the regressions fixed by the addition of debug info, inline asm and vector support? (Once debug info support is added, the same question applies regarding GDB testsuite status.) Do you propose annotating testcases for features not supported with LLVM so they are XFAILed when configured with --enable-llvm? (XFAIL would be right for features the compiler should support but LLVM doesn't yet; UNSUPPORTED for tests of some incidental feature of the current back-end implementation which it makes sense for replacement infrastructure not to support. A switch to LLVM as the default back-end for a target would require no such XFAILs for that target, though there might be UNSUPPORTEDs, buggy testcases might be fixed or removed and features might be removed through the usual deprecation process. dg-xfail-if and dg-skip-if with an llvm effective-target keyword are the way to annotate the tests.) -- Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CodeSourcery mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
