GSoC: Making ports work with clang

["C. Bergström"]

Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 11:51:52PM +0300, Andrius Mork??nas wrote:
>   
>> On Sun, 02 May 2010 10:25:22 +0300, Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Having tried clang++ I have a feeling that it's not quite ready to be a
>>> generic c++ compiler.
>>>       
> [snip]
>   
>>> Very immature.
>>>       
>> Many problems that C++ ports have with clang is not related to it being
>> immature, they're related to the fact that clang isn't gcc and that
>> those ports aren't written in standard C++.
>>     
>
> Too true.
>   
I can understand from a commercial perspective why having a permissive 
licensed production compiler could be good.. I can understand why many 
people don't like gcc or fsf, but what does the BSD community get?

1) Performance?
2) Robustness?
3) ... ?

What's really the goal here?  What problem are you working to solve?  
May I humbly say that building software with a different compiler in 
itself doesn't really accomplish anything.

Starting early can give valuable feedback , but without actually having 
the resources to follow-up it's wasted effort.  Is llvm at the point 
where it can self host BSD?  If not why not start there?  Maybe identify 
the most used applications..

I don't waste time on front-end work though so this is of course my 
humble opinion..

./C