Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 10:27:44 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@ixsystems.com>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r264042 - in head: include lib/libc/gen lib/libc/include lib/libc/stdlib Message-ID: <9E916835-C870-4F7E-B594-EB4671C404B2@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8E3BD3C1-A441-48C5-97BC-45EF67513096@FreeBSD.org> References: <201404021607.s32G7mhw051355@svn.freebsd.org> <20140404115256.GA85137@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <F2A33EA8-14F2-4D62-9021-9023A1751E48@FreeBSD.org> <8D6AF193-A5A3-4A28-A230-97A543395ACA@ixsystems.com> <2E0EC8CB-B3EE-4DB8-A33D-58FD2107F14D@FreeBSD.org> <6A02504F-5543-4F91-92F6-7B4FB9A34DC4@ixsystems.com> <152D73EE-DF9E-4757-B547-F1F22B12C824@FreeBSD.org> <B06E1588-8828-485F-A407-3F19231F8EA5@ixsystems.com> <8E3BD3C1-A441-48C5-97BC-45EF67513096@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 4, 2014, at 8:03 AM, David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On 4 Apr 2014, at 14:44, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@ixsystems.com> wrote: > >> Ah, OK. And I’m guessing there’s been no interest in forward-porting the blocks support to 4.7? That’s kind of… a bummer. > > I don't think so. Warner has been forward-porting some of the FreeBSD binutils changes, but even Pedro (who did the blocks port to FreeBSD gcc 4.2.1) doesn't want to touch gcc anymore. As far as I can tell, all the binutils stuff is upstream. It’s the gcc hacks that we’ve done that I’m working on. >> I’m guessing the great white hope for all the platforms is a slow convergence on clang then? What is the compiler toolchain master plan? If there’s a wiki somewhere describing it, I’d also be happy to just go read that. > > Not really. Converging on clang is nice, but even then it's good to have (at least) a second working compiler for several reasons: > > - As we discovered with gcc, having a single source for a core component is usually not ideal, as they can change the rules suddenly > > - If there's a bug in clang (and, given that it's getting on for a million lines of C++ code now, the odds are good that there are always going to be a few), it's helpful to have another compiler for testing. > > - Periodic testing with another compiler stops us shipping code that relies on non-conformant behaviour. The amount of effort that it's required to get the Linux kernel to build with clang should be a warning for us - we don't want to fall into the same trap. > > That said, I think we're increasingly going to be using LLVM for things that are beyond just simple AOT compilation, so platforms with no LLVM back end are likely to be left behind. I image there will be a slow rollout of the LLVM features, where they replace current features to make them faster, the non-clang platforms get less optimal performance. For new features, the non-clang platforms might get reduced functionality in that area. I doubt that we’ll have any core, mandatory feature requiring LLVM for some time, though that day may come… I doubt it will be a sudden switch. In the mean time, things like gcc x86 kernel builds start to decay… They are broken right now… Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9E916835-C870-4F7E-B594-EB4671C404B2>