| 1 |
Hello, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
it's entirely possible to replace gcc for clang for *most* packages, however some will not build currently and will require you to set up a package.env file with entries for those packages (like described on clang's wiki entry). Clang usually compiles faster than GCC does, but produces slower binaries (at least for me). Also, clang offers flto=thin, which doesn't require as much ram as gcc's lto |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Regards, |
| 6 |
Rasmus |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Sent from ProtonMail mobile |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
-------- Original Message -------- |
| 11 |
On 30 Apr 2017, 12:11, wrote: |
| 12 |
Hi, |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
before I do a lot of reconfiguring, recompiling and finally |
| 15 |
do the same thing again in the opposite direction: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
What are the experiences to replace gcc with clang for either |
| 18 |
only userland tools or the whole system (with haveing gcc as |
| 19 |
fallback)? |
| 20 |
Is it worth the effort? |
| 21 |
What are the benefits and the drawbacks? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thanks for any input in advance! |
| 24 |
Cheers |
| 25 |
Meino |
Archives