From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 7 07:37:32 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883EC721 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 07:37:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from tensor.andric.com (tensor.andric.com [87.251.56.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BEC5F7A for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 07:37:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:406f:4ff9:6789:6380] (unknown [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:406f:4ff9:6789:6380]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tensor.andric.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 214235C37; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 08:37:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50EA7B38.9010604@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 08:37:28 +0100 From: Dimitry Andric Organization: The FreeBSD Project User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:18.0) Gecko/20121128 Thunderbird/18.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakub Lach Subject: Re: LLVM 3.2: official stable port is still LLVM 3.1. Basesystem missing important LLVM pieces! References: <50E97457.7050809@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <34476030-BDBF-46C4-8E7D-60FDC53B076A@FreeBSD.org> <50E9B385.9060104@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <042CBED1-5257-4517-B040-9EE760BE7FE1@cederstrand.dk> <50E9FCB9.2000805@FreeBSD.org> <1357513671871-5775300.post@n5.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <1357513671871-5775300.post@n5.nabble.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 07:37:32 -0000 On 2013-01-07 00:07, Jakub Lach wrote: > While it is only remotely related, it looks like MFC of 3.2 for STABLE > should be around the corner? I'm postponing the MFC of 3.2, until we find the exact cause of the libgcc problem (1). -Dimitry 1) http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2012-December/038766.html