Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 12 Sep 2012, at 10:15, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
>> At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their =
ports
>> build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to.
>=20
> I think this is a mis-representation.
>=20
> Adding the requirement "your ports must work on clang" is adding an
> ex-post-facto requirement.  This creates the following matrix of what
> we are implicitly asking maintainers to do:
>=20
> (FreeBSD 7|8|9|10) * (amd64|arm|i386|powerpc|sparc64) * (base gcc|base =
clang)
>=20
> It is completely insane to expect anyone to be able to test in all of =
those
> environments, or even a tiny subset of them.  This isn't what most =
people
> sign up for when they sign up to maintain ports.
>=20
>> Those who don't run CURRENT won't notice, but those who do will have =
to
>> get their butts up and fix the ports
>=20
> I think it's foolish to assume that maintainres don't have their butts =
in
> gear as it is.  Please note, we have nearly 1300 PRs, hundreds of =
ports with
> build errors and/or PRs, and hundreds that fail on -current only.  I =
try to
> advertise all these things the best I know how.  Adding the hundreds =
that
> fail on -clang only and then blaming the maintainers is simply going =
to be
> counter-productive.

I'd also guess that FreeBSD ports is probably the biggest exposure clang
has ever seen to 3rd party code. I can't think of any other project=20
except maybe macports who try to run clang over some much 3rd party code =
and=20
so FreeBSD  ports is hitting all the bumps in the road that most people =
get
to ignore.

- Mark

_______________________________________________
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"