how long to keep support for gcc on x86?

[John Baldwin]

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 8:24:02 am Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> 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.

It is not but so hard to add new instructions to binutils.  I did it recently 
for the xsave stuff as well the instructions needed by bhyve.  How many 
instructions are you talking about (and which ones)?

-- 
John Baldwin