From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 2 20:52:02 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3021065670; Sun, 2 May 2010 20:52:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hinokind@gmail.com) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.156]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C838FC08; Sun, 2 May 2010 20:52:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so594044fgb.13 for ; Sun, 02 May 2010 13:51:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:content-type:to:cc:subject :references:date:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:from :message-id:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=vkh3u8F204jJG7Eguejku322J5UpV73K2Bdsx6/2Q60=; b=UypLTZtwBwpG+3/cL/YBxrEgtrJ7IwD0OAGDjeApjdsce8zu6SUc7xHbGa3IRFtpUR IozTbBf6wfLePNHolBcqWNtQlUDj9PKne7CCHtOxLv975xmwIxwF+G5a4xzj0u4qC6Zm C84sxZeF21VdZSyyekT4TMdqs6MU1dE7mjyZc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=content-type:to:cc:subject:references:date:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:from:message-id:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=vkAWQVIYgaAsbDYMgrudNcimwDhzQ1ZznEeBYa+2S2kmMkTU6oFK96M5AGhjkZuE24 POtWmGtJlegfjPLHqJD/DLJ3fMu48OfbxON7J2qGPkUP+ll/D4nQd2hsGkZ8vMfq/I6X BQu+cv52kEsg1C0gN+ycI/u0ADjG6JdoDE78s= Received: by 10.86.126.20 with SMTP id y20mr8893707fgc.10.1272833515744; Sun, 02 May 2010 13:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klevas (hst-17-80.splius.lt [77.79.17.80]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d4sm8599273fga.5.2010.05.02.13.51.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 02 May 2010 13:51:54 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: yuri@rawbw.com References: <4BDD28E2.8010201@rawbw.com> Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 23:51:52 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: =?utf-8?B?QW5kcml1cyBNb3JrxatuYXM=?= Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4BDD28E2.8010201@rawbw.com> User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.10 (FreeBSD) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GSoC: Making ports work with clang X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 20:52:02 -0000 On Sun, 02 May 2010 10:25:22 +0300, Yuri wrote: > Having tried clang++ I have a feeling that it's not quite ready to be a > generic c++ compiler. > It crashes a lot, fails on many quite simple c++ patterns. The current state of clang doesn't bother me too much. I'm aware of its limitations, but I'm also aware of the pace of clang/llvm development. Trying clang at any given time is quite different than actually seeing it get better and better every week, for months. When llvm 2.6 was released, clang didn't compile C++ at all, and compared to that, what we have now is definitely better. I'm sure that by the end of the summer I'm going to call current version of clang/llvm "horribly outdated", just like I've been calling any clang version which is over a month old. It will get better. > Very immature. Many problems that C++ ports have with clang is not related to it being immature, they're related to the fact that clang isn't gcc and that those ports aren't written in standard C++. > Don't you feel it's too early to start project like you are going to > given the state of clang with c++? No I don't. My project doesn't rely on clang supporting all of C++. I just want to prepare ports tree for clang. I don't intend to make 21645+ ports work with clang over the summer, that may be slightly too much work even for me. So if I can't get KDE working, too bad, but let's wait until clang supports all the fancy C++ KDE needs and I'll just get it working then, even if that's after the summer is long over. You could say that the goal of this project is to make fixing ports+clang easier in the future. > You will just keep stumbling upon various problems with various ports I've mentioned that I've been involved with ports+clang since last October. "Stumbling upon various problems" is what I do. I'm still here, even doing a GSoC project, so it doesn't look like "various problems" will scare me off. And as I've mentioned above, just because some ports don't compile, it doesn't affect this project too much. > and maybe will make 30% of c++ ports build with it at best. [citation needed] -- Andrius