how long to keep support for gcc on x86?

[Konstantin Belousov]

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:09:09AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> 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.
Absolutely agree.

Please note that in the AES-NI case, gcc 'support' is only partially
gcc issue, if gcc at all. Our 2.17 gas does not know about AES-NI
mnemonics and cannot assemble them.

AFAIR the patch uses C built-in for AES-NI and SSE3 or 4, which I think
could be implemented manually in the amount needed for the patch, for
old gcc.

> 
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20130113/6505b7f5/attachment.sig>