| 1 |
Rasmus.thomsen <Rasmus.thomsen@××××××××××.com> schrieb am So., 30. Apr. |
| 2 |
2017, 12:19: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Hello, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> it's entirely possible to replace gcc for clang for *most* packages, |
| 7 |
> however some will not build currently and will require you to set up a |
| 8 |
> package.env file with entries for those packages (like described on clang's |
| 9 |
> wiki entry). Clang usually compiles faster than GCC does, but produces |
| 10 |
> slower binaries (at least for me). Also, clang offers flto=thin, which |
| 11 |
> doesn't require as much ram as gcc's lto |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Regards, |
| 14 |
> Rasmus |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Sent from ProtonMail mobile |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> -------- Original Message -------- |
| 22 |
> On 30 Apr 2017, 12:11, < tuxic@××××××.de> wrote: |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Hi, |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> before I do a lot of reconfiguring, recompiling and finally |
| 28 |
> do the same thing again in the opposite direction: |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> What are the experiences to replace gcc with clang for either |
| 31 |
> only userland tools or the whole system (with haveing gcc as |
| 32 |
> fallback)? |
| 33 |
> Is it worth the effort? |
| 34 |
> What are the benefits and the drawbacks? |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Thanks for any input in advance! |
| 37 |
> Cheers |
| 38 |
> Meino |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Hi, |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
There is a tracking bug about what does not compile with clang. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408963 |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> |
Archives