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 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
