Wojciech Puchar wrote:
5. clang/llvm is more modular than gcc, although there are plans for
gcc to become as modular, it will take time.
Doesn't matter how it is written, but how it performs.
That's a hard one. I remember an error in gcc loop optimizer which makes
gcc produce SSE2 opcodes for pre-SSE2 athlon chips. Due to gcc internal
design such errors are often seen and almost never patched as you should
have eternal knowledge of gcc code. gcc's bugtraq is just a cemetery.
Opposing to this ones most fixes to clang touch minimal source lines and
minimal set of files.
Same should be used for clang. AS LONG as it is not better it should not
be imported into base system or worse - used as default.
And why you think it's not better then gcc?
With gcc I can result in code that will hang locking some parts of
system forever, yet with clang the code will break predictably yielding
a core and a point on where the debugging should start. That was long
ago and I can't correctly remember the PR's are I noted this but that
was long ago and helped me to debug ZFS issues a lot.
The code that runs faster is not the best one. The code that is
predictable and runs as fast as possible is.
--
Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
