llvm/clang a tool chain or just a compiler for FreeBSD?

[Ed Schouten]

* Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no> wrote:
> "Shaowei Wang (wsw)" <wsw1wsw2 at gmail.com> writes:
> > So what's the direction? Are we going to cut off all the GNU compiler
> > tool chains and use the llvm/clang when it's mature.
> 
> Who's "we"?
> 
> Anyway, LLVM *isn't* mature, and it probably won't be for years, if
> ever, so there's no point in asking.

Even though "if ever" sounds a little bit pessimistic, I agree.

Unfortunately I'm busy working on other things the last couple of
weeks/months, but the biggest problem with LLVM/Clang right now is that
the latest release on the website is practically useless to us.  I've
been tracking SVN, but each time I decide to upgrade sources, I get yet
another regression, which means I have to file bug reports. I think I
already filed 50-60 bug reports.

For some reason there has been a lot of talking, but no hacking. It
takes a lot of work to maintain ClangBSD, at least more than I'm willing
to spend on it right now.

-- 
 Ed Schouten <ed at 80386.nl>
 WWW: http://80386.nl/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/attachments/20090722/b1e1b2be/attachment.pgp