From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2343194D for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:35:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf0-f48.google.com (mail-lf0-f48.google.com [209.85.215.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34E5D20A for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:35:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f48.google.com with SMTP id l69so44325577lfg.1 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:35:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:35:30 +0300 From: Alexey Dobriyan To: Jiri Kosina Message-ID: <20160720183530.GA2958@p183.telecom.by> References: <87inw1skws.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20160719173120.GE30372@sirena.org.uk> <20160720155319.GG6509@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] [TECH TOPIC] Support (or move towards to) LLVM List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 07:04:59PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > There's a push from certain quarters to move away from GCC to LLVM. > > > > > This might actually be an interesting topic per se. > > > > Yes, indeed. > > Let's make this a real proposal then ... (subject changed). I am again a > bit unsure about the core / tech division here. > > People who should be invited: proponents of the push from the certain > quarters mentioned by Mark above, and ideally some LLVM folks as well. This is a bit premature until Linux Clang patchset is empty. As an example, alternatives do not work and IIRC VLAs won't work ever: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24487 Of course, compiling with Clang should be encouraged. At worst, it is yet another static checker.