Re: LLVM 4.0 AVR backend

On 16/03/17 09:30, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> 
> On 16.03.17 08:54, David Brown wrote:
>> It might be a little heretical to ask here, but has anyone tried out the
>> experimental AVR backend in the latest llvm/clang release?  I have not
>> made much use of clang, but it's been good for gcc to have a bit of
>> friendly competition.  I think it will be interesting to see how
>> clang/llvm differs from gcc for the AVR.
> 
> No, I haven't tried it. As even gcc backend support moves at a sedate
> pace, I'm moved to wonder who works on the llvm avr backend?
> 
> Your move to discover what user base it has is a good one, but after a
> couple of decades of using gcc on multiple targets, I'm probably rusted
> on to the toolchain which has served me so well for so long in so many
> battles.
> 

I don't really know anything about the llvm AVR backend, or who is
working on it - I just saw it described in the release notes for llvm 4.0.

I too have been using gcc on a range of targets for something like 20
years (building a gcc cross-compiler for the 68k running on Windows was
not an easy job in those days!), and I haven't had any new projects for
the AVR for a good while.  But I am always interested to see if
alternatives suit my needs better - if llvm/clang can do a better job
for me than gcc, I'm as loyal as a cat.