how long to keep support for gcc on x86?

[Peter Wemm]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org> wrote:

> Thus I think adding clang-only code to the system right now is very,
> very premature. There still seem to be reasons to run systems on GCC
> instead of clang.

I don't have a problem with it so long as the system isn't *broken* if
you're not using clang.  ie: if the status-quo is maintained for gcc
systems and g-faster bits are enabled with clang.  It's fine to
provide incentives to try clang, but it is not ok to regress the gcc
case.

eg: we did the same with gcc in the early days, or at least made a
token effort.  eg: you got __asm __inline with gcc, or regular
assembler functions if not.  It was never complete though.

I use clang in general (and WITHOUT_GCC), but not on lower end
machines like Atom boxes.  They don't have AES-NI anyway.

-- 
Peter Wemm - peter at wemm.org; peter at FreeBSD.org; peter at yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV
bitcoin:188ZjyYLFJiEheQZw4UtU27e2FMLmuRBUE