Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standardcompiler?)

Christoph Mallon christoph.mallon at
Thu Jan 15 04:53:57 PST 2009

Roman Divacky schrieb:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 01:44:48PM +0100, Christoph Mallon wrote:
>> Roman Divacky schrieb:
>>> 2) llvm uses special "bytecode" that gets compiled into native machine
>>> code so technically speaking "classic" assembler is not needed for 
>>> llvm/clang.
>> This is an irrelevant detail for normal use.
> yes.... but the point is that clang does not need "something that translates
> mov ax, bx to machine code"

It's not problem if your source is C, but what if the source is assembler?

>>> the chain with clang is: clang -> llvm bc -> native binary
>> This is just a kludge, because clang has no proper compiler driver, yet.
> there's a work going on successor of ccc and ccc itself works for a lot of
> cases even today (I use it for compiling freebsd)

I know that, you know it, too. This makes mentioning the kludge even 
more irrelevant, because it is not the normal way you use the compiler. 
Btw, the current compiler driver is just a prototype and will be replaced.

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list