Clang as default compiler November 4th
tijl at coosemans.org
Tue Sep 11 14:29:13 UTC 2012
On 11-09-2012 16:10, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2012-09-11 15:24, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> What is important is whether software built with clang functions
>> correctly. See for example,
> Yes, maths support, specifically precision, is admittedly still one of
> clang's (really llvm's) weaker points. It is currently not really a
> high priority item for upstream.
> This is obviously something that a certain part of our userbase will
> care a lot about, while most of the time they won't care so much about
> licensing or politics. So those people are probably better off using
> gcc for the time being.
Does it affect the accuracy of libm functions?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20120911/f30c2d83/signature.pgp
More information about the freebsd-current