using clang

[Da Rock]

On 04/02/12 04:02, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:06:08 -0400
> Robert Huff<roberthuff at rcn.com>  wrote:
>
>> Conrad J. Sabatier writes:
>>
>>>   Note, too, that none of these exceptions have anything to do with
>>>   my /usr/src builds.  I've been using clang for buildworld and
>>>   buildkernel for quite some time now.
>> 	I've heard that, but I think I'll wait until it becomes the
>> official default.  :-)
> I can well understand your hesitation.  I didn't jump on the clang
> bandwagon for a good while myself, either.
>
> But, from examining and comparing clang's assembly language output
> against gcc's, it does seem pretty apparent that clang produces
> some pretty darned efficient code, frequently using notably fewer
> machine instructions than gcc, so I try to use it now as much as
> possible.  I also find its error and warning messages to be much more
> precise and informative than gcc's, which is a real boon if you do any
> coding yourself.
Tell me about it. I just found the real reason why libreoffice is 
failing when it gets to tests... :)
>
> There's that, plus the fact that the base system's version of gcc (4.2)
> doesn't fully support my processor family type (amdfam10), whereas
> clang does (although, to be fair, gcc 4.6+ does as well).
>
>>>   Hope this helps somewhat.  :-)
>> 	Very much.
>> 	Thank you.
> You'll come around eventually, no doubt.  :-)
>