Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:54:51 +0300 From: Alexander Yerenkow <yerenkow@gmail.com> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: Christer Solskogen <christer.solskogen@gmail.com>, FreeBSD <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Andreas Nilsson <andrnils@gmail.com>, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler Message-ID: <CAPJF9wmg6EJiZtxtKrf4JWS5-kRd3LqBV1zsBRhdAC3Y16KNeQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120912070212.GA12778@lonesome.com> References: <CAPS9%2BSsCSsM2DPgdd=016yTf1tE6Y0d=7FV-h9NjXb_j3eET2Q@mail.gmail.com> <20120912060420.GE31029@lonesome.com> <CAMVU60as9p9GxDCJNqCEavQ4U=S5V3OnovN53oyGxRuFOZ0kiA@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo83-v=S0xnnaCKY6u4Y2NcgUJA2pg3EER%2B%2BNDxxJRy_wYSg@mail.gmail.com> <20120912070212.GA12778@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
How about run automated test on two poudriere setups, one with CLANG set up, other with USE_GCC=4.2 applied to all ports which marked as broken, and find in pretty long but relatively easy way ports which should have USE_GCC=4.2 to survive clang-era, and ports which even with that require a bit more love? Is there somewhere list of these clang-failing ports? I think some mass testing could be organized by little efforts. -- Regards, Alexander Yerenkow
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPJF9wmg6EJiZtxtKrf4JWS5-kRd3LqBV1zsBRhdAC3Y16KNeQ>