Finally. Someone who's really smart Explained Everything in a solid bug-free english text (shame on me).
> And if/when such a switch happens, bugs will trigger and problems will > need fixing; and we can not risk being naive enough to expect llvm > developers to handle bug reports and bugfix releases any better than the > gcc developers do (although we hope they will). > Assuming the upstream developers fail to deliver, it's up to us to fix > or workaround compiler problems as we encounter them; sometimes it's as > easy as finding out which patch has been commited upstream, but not > backported to the version we use; and sometimes it's a genuine issue > which may or may not have been reported in the latest compiler version, > and we are on our own. When this happens, we can only rely upon our > developer skills and intimacy with the compiler. The absolute truth. > ...but there is something I wish would happen first. > > An LTS release of an open source compiler. > > Because all compilers nowadays are full of subtle bugs, but so many of > them than you can't avoid them as soon as you compile any nontrivial > piece of code, and because we can't afford to going back to assembly, we > need a compiler we can trust. PERFECT, thought-out idea. > Should a free software LTS compiler appear (be it a gcc fork, or an llvm > fork, or something else), then OpenBSD would consider using it, very > seriously. And we probably wouldn't be the only free software project > doing so. The answer is definitly YES. Though I am just a f*****g user who talks to much. For such a brilliant manuscrpit I'd only like to add a simple sub-question: Are you guys consider Portable C Compiler unsuitable/dead for this race? Or you just want stable LTS slices of industry-backed compillers? Regards, Hans.
