Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 08:00:46 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Christer Solskogen <christer.solskogen@gmail.com> Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, FreeBSD <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Andreas Nilsson <andrnils@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler Message-ID: <CADLo83-v=S0xnnaCKY6u4Y2NcgUJA2pg3EER%2B%2BNDxxJRy_wYSg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAMVU60as9p9GxDCJNqCEavQ4U=S5V3OnovN53oyGxRuFOZ0kiA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPS9%2BSsCSsM2DPgdd=016yTf1tE6Y0d=7FV-h9NjXb_j3eET2Q@mail.gmail.com> <20120912060420.GE31029@lonesome.com> <CAMVU60as9p9GxDCJNqCEavQ4U=S5V3OnovN53oyGxRuFOZ0kiA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12 Sep 2012 07:19, "Christer Solskogen" <christer.solskogen@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: > > > For most of the failures, we are already aware of them, as a result of > > our periodic runs. So, just filing a PR to say "broken on clang" doesn't > > really help us all that much. > > > > I disagree. Just a tiny bit ;-) > If the PR says that USE_GCC=4.2 works as a workaround, it helps. We don't want thousands of PRs duplicating the information from a simple list of failures. Any can be fixed in this way. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-v=S0xnnaCKY6u4Y2NcgUJA2pg3EER%2B%2BNDxxJRy_wYSg>