On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:37:55 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
<[email protected]> wrote:
This tens or hundreds of thousands of work-hours could be spent far
better by getting latest gcc available on GPLv2 licence and start from
there, just improving it.
We already have the latest available with GPLv2, which is very far behind
and it requires GCC codebase experts to make any changes at all. This is
equivalent to letting any random coder make major changes to OpenSSL --
you simply cannot afford to risk it.
Yes, I noticed you showed a few benchmarks where Clang was slower. It's
bound to be a bit slower with some test cases at first -- they're rounding
out the features before going back for major optimizations. It won't be
long and it will be sufficiently on par if not exceeding GCC's
capabilities. Writing a compiler is no trivial task, and they've built the
right framework and have a very active community.
Listen, Apple has a MAJOR investment in Clang/LLVM. They simply would not
allow major across-the-board speed regressions to happen during the
release of iOS or OSX. They're going to throw tons of time and money to
make it destroy GCC and target any ARCH they have the slightest interest
in. Clang has a very bright future, so don't be so discouraged.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
