On 11/17/2011 4:19 AM, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: > DragonFly, FreeBSD and NetBSD has very similar versions of citrus. > OpenBSD took a different and simpler aproach. I suggest for interested > people, look in the FreeBSD code because they is working with clang and > will be more easy discard possible bugs.
>From the little I know of citrus, I was under the impression that nobody has worked on it or cared about it (besides perhaps me) in years. Anything that serves to update this and be simpler would probably get a vote from me. > > Other problem is the C++ code (e.g. binutils doesn't compile) but I > consider most important now only the problems related to C. Well, that's a deal-breaker. If the project made a decree that the base compiler languages were limited to c-languages, then I would probably advocate clang over gcc in the long-term (I know Samuel's argument, and I could provide some rebuttal to his concerns). However, that means we accept C++ in the base, and I would like to see the gold linker be able to be a drop-in replacement for ld (I have hopes for binutils 2.22). If clang can't property build a fundamental part of the toolchain, it's a non-starter in my eyes. That said, I have a hard time believing the clang folks would let binutils not be buildable. What's wrong there? John
