On 17/11/11 07:11, John Marino wrote: > 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.
citrus was completely updated just a year ago - it's far from abandoned. Cheers, Alex > >> >> 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 >
