Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2025 23:48:10 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 284446] [exp-run] with base c3450ad127e94d3fa67ae337310e59c002f51bfc reverted Message-ID: <bug-284446-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D284446 Bug ID: 284446 Summary: [exp-run] with base c3450ad127e94d3fa67ae337310e59c002f51bfc reverted Product: Ports & Packages Version: Latest Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Many People Priority: --- Component: Ports Framework Assignee: portmgr@FreeBSD.org Reporter: dim@FreeBSD.org CC: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org In base c3450ad127e94d3fa67ae337310e59c002f51bfc I applied an upstream clang commit that downgraded errors about implicit int and implicit function declaration to warnings. This was to make it easier to build the ports tree with clang 18, since at the time many ports were not coping with these erro= rs properly. For instance, configure scripts tend to use very sloppy C code to check for features such as library calls, and having these error out due to implicit = int or implicit function declarations would cause these configure scripts to conclude that those features were not available, while this was not actually the case. I would like to request an exp-run with base c3450ad127e94d3fa67ae337310e59c002f51bfc reverted, so we can spot any immed= iate fallout, such as failed builds. However, the greater risk is in builds that 'silently' succeed, but where p= ort features are disabled or misdetected, due to the above mentioned bad config= ure scripts. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-284446-7788>