Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:27:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> Cc: "toolchain@freebsd.org" <toolchain@freebsd.org>, "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th Message-ID: <1347380827.22767.YahooMailNeo@web113519.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> 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
Hello; Just my $0.02. ----- Original Message ----- ... > 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. > > I do strongly oppose the attempt to drain the freebsd resources by > forcing porters to port third-party code to other compiler. > I can only speak for Apache OpenOffice but since Apple did the switch already we are feeling a growing pressure to port OpenOffice to clang. For the time being we need gcc but we would really prefer something more up to date than gcc 4.2.1 + fixes. In other words, yes making clang the default may sound drastic but I am OK with killing base gcc and if clang is what is left I can live with it. Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1347380827.22767.YahooMailNeo>