On 2015/04/28 16:21, Eric Lalonde wrote:
> The reason there was no diff from me sooner is I tried to implement this
> using Clang/llvm. Clang compiled great but ran into hundreds of linking
> errors along the lines of “Discarded symbols in section….”. This was my first
> foray into LLVM/Clang, so I was going to do more research when Kent sent me
> his diff, which works great.
This is an issue with the current version of binutils, it affects a
number of ports. (other issues: very high memory use, a real problem on
i386, and poor assembler support for recent opcodes, which is probably a
bigger problem on amd64 and arm).
Using gcc4.8 is fine with me, though (and in general, not just here)
I would prefer a comment explaining why it was chosen ("needs c++11;
linker issues wth clang" would be plenty good enough).
