Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:35:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1209111131500.21183@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20120911122122.GJ37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <20120910211207.GC64920@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20120911104518.GF37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911120649.GA52235@freebsd.org> <20120911122122.GJ37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote: >> >> We currently dont compile 4680 ports (out of 23857). Top 10 ports that prevent >> the most other ports from compiling together prevent 2222 ports from >> compilation. So if we fixed those 10 ports we could be at around 2500 ports >> not compiling. Thats quite far from your claim of forking 20k programs. > > Sorry, I cannot buy the argument. How many patches there are already > in the ports tree to cope with clang incompatibility with gcc ? You may > declare that all of them are application bugs, but it completely misses > the point. [ snip ] >> I believe majority of the broken ports is broken because their maintainer >> never saw them being broken with clang just because it's not the default >> compiler. Thus by making it the default majority of the problems would just >> go away. > > Can you, please, read what I wrote ? Fixing _ports_ to compile with > clang is plain wrong. Upstream developers use gcc almost always for > development and testing. Establishing another constant cost on the > porting work puts burden on the ports submitters, maintainers and even > ports users. This is a good point! -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.1209111131500.21183>