Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 08:18:42 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com> Cc: Brandon Gooch <jamesbrandongooch@gmail.com>, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD Message-ID: <20100531151841.GA56247@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <4C03D0C0.4050306@andric.com> References: <20100529130240.GA99732@freebsd.org> <AANLkTinmNl-csPP8pp-zhAVJ3Kqe1mTbK6J5tqstDdCK@mail.gmail.com> <20100531144938.GA55909@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4C03D0C0.4050306@andric.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 05:07:44PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2010-05-31 16:49, Steve Kargl wrote: > >> So, what exactly should we expect, if anything, to break? :) > > > > Did you build and install new boot code? ISTR that clang > > can't compile src/sys/boot/i386/boot0 to the required > > 512 bytes. > > No, boot0 is written in assembly, and run through the regular (GNU) > assembler. Neither gcc nor clang do anything more except calling the > linker. > > The only component (in the whole clangbsd src tree) which still needs to > be compiled with gcc is boot2, which otherwise ends up just a little too > big, and doesn't fit. This is being worked on, but it isn't very > critical, really. Note that clangbsd automatically uses gcc for this > specific code, unless you override it manually. Doesn't this imply that clang/llvm isn't quite ready for deployment. Being able to boot a complete clang/llvm compiled FreeBSD system would seem to be critical. When you say "This is being worked on", do you mean clang/llvm is being changed to compile boot2 or do you mean boot2 is being changed to allow clang/lvvm to compile it? -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100531151841.GA56247>