Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 17:00:09 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>, Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org>, Ports FreeBSD <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: LLVM 3.2: official stable port is still LLVM 3.1. Basesystem missing important LLVM pieces! Message-ID: <50E99F89.6010802@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <50E98FB2.5040304@FreeBSD.org> References: <50E97457.7050809@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <50E98FB2.5040304@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig489B11C016A90294F75B7530 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 01/06/13 15:52, schrieb Dimitry Andric: > On 2013-01-06 13:55, O. Hartmann wrote: >> While working with an OpenCL port that is depending on LLVM 3.2, I fee= l >> very uncomfortable haveng to have devel/llvm-devel installed while the= >> official release of LLVM is 3.2. >=20 > Please prod the port maintainer (Brooks) to update the llvm port > instead. I have CC'd him on this mail. >=20 >=20 >> The port devel/llvm is still the older >> 3.1. Is this going to be changed? >=20 > Obviously, but this is at the discretion of the port maintainer. If > Brooks needs more time, then you will have be a little patient. Also > please remember that ports just came out of feature freeze. >=20 I also filed a PR ( http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3D175059). It seems, that the port devel/llvm-devel also misses some pieces of the most recent LLVM 3.2, as it is needed to compile POCL properly, but I leave this with the experts to change. I try to follow a logical path: devel/llvm represents the recent release, while devel/llvm-devel should be the development branch, 3.3 by now. I do not know whether we need LLVM 3.1 any more, since apart from the POCL device driver backend via LLVM for OpenCL target I know about nothing in the FreeBSD realm by now using LLVM. I might be wrong ... So, I see forward to hear from the decissions made ;-) Oliver --------------enig489B11C016A90294F75B7530 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ6Z+JAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N82SAH/RoV1FoknW033dLIznEBFlqF c0sPC3sGPnAxjwmMQeneZu5DzlSGIFKv6Ta2sfMxAfhChqFcB6qPICjfDioAusoG 0RKdLyn9ChVOVEe4JjFXgCaUUDmWzrb5FVeipJKnBybrdy9P8QHnhePbvHjV0Rcx dIp+BUYsBHYMg69Usaf3ZwjBlUsqqPbE26LBZE7M9/3PjbiXCH0tS4z4grOT0y3W 5Mtz1Du8dPLadmbCiLvFM1Ox3SNM5bSmJEarBjS+GUB4gLLEf+r06cNxn/KnNEmd 1QvHC6ssHsqXUa07U6mTkWcNgOhVAtV3rBNJQ4BZXPKucXg1nSqRH3Ca4M4J4iI= =MrVA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig489B11C016A90294F75B7530--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50E99F89.6010802>