Since llvm-gcc uses the gcc front end this isn't surprising. In fact, if parrot failed to build with that compiler it would only tell us that there is something wrong with their intergration work. IMHO it would be more interesting to test with clang which might actually pick up some sort of portability issue (or just bugs in clang).
-J -- On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:18:39AM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote: > As a followup I added a line to PLATFORMS, as particle and Coke requested. > > I also ran the benchmark tests with an optimized build both with > llvm-gcc 4.2 and ordinary gcc 4.2, here is what I get: > > ordinary gcc: > real 1m29.733s > user 1m22.489s > sys 0m7.024s > > llvm-gcc: > real 1m55.984s > user 1m45.987s > sys 0m7.588s > > (llvm is version 2.2). Not better either, but Reini told me that llvm > 2.3 might be better. > > I also did a 'make testexec' on unoptimized builds, and got tons of test > errors with both compilers. > > > -- > Moritz Lenz > http://moritz.faui2k3.org/ | http://perl-6.de/
