Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 14:27:52 +0300 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: "C. Bergstr??m" <cbergstrom@pathscale.com> Cc: us Mork??nas <hinokind@gmail.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, yuri@rawbw.com, Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com>, =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmk=?=@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GSoC: Making ports work with clang Message-ID: <20100503112752.GH50864@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <4BDEB154.8060104@pathscale.com> References: <op.vb0w1zrh43o42p@klevas> <4BDD28E2.8010201@rawbw.com> <op.vb3iwpzw43o42p@klevas> <20100503092213.GA1294@straylight.m.ringlet.net> <4BDEA78F.90303@pathscale.com> <4BDEA926.4030900@andric.com> <4BDEB154.8060104@pathscale.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--9sSKoi6Rw660DLir Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 06:19:48PM +0700, "C. Bergstr??m" wrote: > Dimitry Andric wrote: > >On 2010-05-03 12:38, "C. Bergstr??m" wrote: > > =20 > >>What's really the goal here? What problem are you working to solve? = =20 > >>May I humbly say that building software with a different compiler in=20 > >>itself doesn't really accomplish anything. > >> =20 > > > >Of course it does. It forces you to make your software portable. > > =20 > and your point is? >=20 > Are you trying to say that s/building/porting/ between compilers is=20 > going to magically make the software (have less bugs, more performance=20 > or better robustness) Porting could be a means-to-an-end, but still=20 > it's not an end goal.. I'm digging at what's the end goal.. After it's=20 > all ported what magically happens? For me, the project that makes sense is exactly "making freebsd ports work with clang", instead of what many have read "making applications ported to freebsd and compiled with clang work". Please note the subtle but very important difference. Even more, I do think that making our ports work with exactly clang does not give us any useful bits, except putting the port _infrastructure_ into shape where it can use non-base compilers, as easy as changing two or three variables. Being able to decouple base and port compilers, and give the port system the freedom to use whatever compiler the port masters find suitable is very important. It is important both for ports, to not need to make a rush run to fix after base changes, and it is important for base to not hold on ports much to make a change. Other then that, I mostly share your refusal to drink the Kool-Aid. --9sSKoi6Rw660DLir Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkveszgACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4jnsgCglqxyOE0vw3RtKwhhLktQGITQ guwAnioVyA6/hPiCnUWV9b3yrqjSPJUt =eEXW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9sSKoi6Rw660DLir--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100503112752.GH50864>