On May 29, 2013, at 2:47 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 29 May 2013, at 07:57, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>> In fact, I am of opinion that while such bugs exist gcc should be crowned
>> back
>> as a default compiler.
>
> Seriously? Your show stopper bug is that, very occasionally, clang emits
>
>Number: 179080
>Category: amd64
>Synopsis: shared folders unter vmware workstation
>Confidential: no
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: low
>Responsible:freebsd-amd64
>State: open
>Quarter:
>Keywords:
>Date-Required:
>Class: c
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:47:52AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 29 May 2013, at 07:57, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> > In fact, I am of opinion that while such bugs exist gcc should be crowned
> > back
> > as a default compiler.
>
> Seriously? Your show stopper bug is that, very occasionally, c
on 29/05/2013 11:47 David Chisnall said the following:
> Seriously? Your show stopper bug is that, very occasionally, clang emits
> incorrect debug info?
Yes, that bug breaks some DTrace scripts that are critical to me.
Otherwise I would not have noticed the issue.
--
Andriy Gapon
___
on 28/05/2013 21:10 David Chisnall said the following:
> On 28 May 2013, at 18:40, Warner Losh wrote:
>
>> That's not going to happen soon. While it works OK for amd64, there's still
>> many bugs in its ARM support and even more in its MIPS support. There's 0
>> chance it will be gone in 10...
>
On 29 May 2013, at 07:57, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> In fact, I am of opinion that while such bugs exist gcc should be crowned back
> as a default compiler.
Seriously? Your show stopper bug is that, very occasionally, clang emits
incorrect debug info? And Steve's is that clang emits code that is f
On 29 May 2013, at 09:51, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> Yes, that bug breaks some DTrace scripts that are critical to me.
> Otherwise I would not have noticed the issue.
Looking at the bug report, you filed it against clang 3.2, just after 3.3 was
branched. Did you test 3.3? Is it fixed? I can on
