On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 16:47 -0500, Steven Munroe wrote:
Jeff Law wrote:
> I'd respectfully disagree. There are certain features that GCC supports that
Clang does not
> and vice-versa. But broadly they are comparable. What this means is some projects
that are
> using bleeding edge features may have a hard need for one toolchain or the other.
And the
> proposal I've made accounts for that by allowing the upstream project to select
the compiler.
> In your case it would be GCC. For others it could well be Clang/LLVM.
I respectfully disagree with your definition of bleeding edge ...
Perhaps that was
a bad choice of words.
And while you allow that some packages have good reasons to stick with
GCC. Several others on this list have demanded that clang/LLVM replace
GCC as the default compiler.
That's not what is being proposed. What's
being proposed is far more narrowly
scoped.
I respectfully restate my position that clang/LLVM is incomplete and
not ready for that role.
The proposal under debate is to change Fedora policy so
that compiler selection
comes from the upstream project.
For your project clearly GCC is a better choice. Other projects Clang/LLVM is a
better choice. Whether or not Clang/LLVM is ready to replace GCC as the default
compiler is not on the table and thus isn't terribly interesting (to me) to
debate.
So I would ask that we keep the discussion to the proposal at hand.
Jeff