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

[Roman Divacky]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:20:36PM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote:
> * Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <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.

I know you disagree with me but from my pov clangbsd is mostly finished.
the integration is "just fine". what we need to do now is to get clang/llvm
and freebsd sources into shapes so there are no problems compiling freebsd
with clang.


most of the problems is with clang but there are things to improve in freebsd
too. I am working (and others as well) on both.

roman