Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th


On 09/11/12 09:56, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2012-09-11 16:27, Tijl Coosemans wrote:> On 11-09-2012 16:10, 
> Dimitry Andric wrote:
> ...
>>> Yes, maths support, specifically precision, is admittedly still one of
>>> clang's (really llvm's) weaker points.  It is currently not really a
>>> high priority item for upstream.
>>>
>>> This is obviously something that a certain part of our userbase will
>>> care a lot about, while most of the time they won't care so much about
>>> licensing or politics.  So those people are probably better off using
>>> gcc for the time being.
>>
>> Does it affect the accuracy of libm functions?
>
> It seems to, at least in specific cases; Steve posted about this in an
> earlier thread on -current:
>
>   http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120905221310.GA97847
> _______________________________________________

If true, this is a serious problem, especially for those of us who use 
FreeBSD in a scientific computing environment.
-Nathan
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"