Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

Roman,

Den 11/09/2012 kl. 14.38 skrev Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>:
>=20
> Upstream developers almost never use gcc4.2.1 as we do. So right now =
the
> ports maintainer must check whats wrong in the case the (upgraded) =
port
> doesnt compile with our in-tree gcc.
>=20
>=20
> It can be trivial USE_GCC=3D4.something but the burden is exactly the =
same
> as with clang.

So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with =
USE_GCC=3D4.2 until they can actually build with clang? This could allow =
the clang switch to proceed. Hopefully, waiting for GCC to compile just =
to install some tiny port will be enough of a nuisance for people to =
eventually fix the remaining ports.

> By the nature of "developing the OS" we are forced to use compilers =
and
> toolchains. Recently I saw you submitting/committing patches with =
..byte
> sequences because our default assembler cant handle the instructions.
> I saw jhb@ updating binutils to support invept/invvpid.
>=20
> In my eyes, switching to clang by default lowers the =
compiler/toolchain
> maintenance burden we have.

I agree. Switching away from abandonware to a compiler that is actively =
maintained is a good thing.

Regarding performance, I could do some benchmarking in my spare time, =
but it does seem like an unforgiving task. Anyone posting any benchmark =
numbers on these lists is going to be tarred, feathered, forced to print =
out the full GCC 4.2.1 source code, read it out loud on the town square, =
and spend the next month addressing concerns from people not willing to =
do the work themselves :-)

Erik=
_______________________________________________
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"