From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Sep 11 14:35:11 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22333106564A;
	Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:35:11 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-ee0-f54.google.com (mail-ee0-f54.google.com [74.125.83.54])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FC38FC12;
	Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:35:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by eeke52 with SMTP id e52so529769eek.13
	for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=VmZ7WlXc7FlZgBpjDN7V74p55pbWoHdbTzvPF2uwnVw=;
	b=ueD2MXrymKJXIHNO1fhpkHoKbmuocNOAYuTru3LVtC+4v7OhhPzQoQw2s8MUdZsXZN
	sF+CsAJTZdt23Zm2UxSXPTSxc6vtAPyPiTdL3YonvTC/9ViXeL8VoOs4ZI7Ee0vL8WvB
	5pB/izzsjYGO3qGsSAWYqU20HqaOtjsQgYUO6OjiQUma44/G54DTIF7bFLuFaPV25+qi
	6f9JCadsFCMrk3Qj/Sv1rxAv6fODcbbuMm7cORK/KtZmYES2kgHSYI3oX1sbldWGxqPz
	2RdRVTwccyPjwNrCR3Bm+SQQQFBh/PiyHQopfdd8JhdubZVNxc0YL3gBBJ9UADwu7qRH
	m6zg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.145.82 with SMTP id c18mr4786871bkv.133.1347374108957;
	Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.10.141 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.10.141 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
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>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:35:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CADLo83-Mtbnd1BSPzuZ3RQc=q3+m5gtixBBbYwvWDM2RoNHdkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5
Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>,
	current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:35:11 -0000

On 11 Sep 2012 13:22, "Konstantin Belousov" <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
> > > > tl;dr: Clang will become the default compiler for x86 architectures
on 2012-11-04
> > >
> > > There was a chorus of voices talking about ports already. My POV
> > > is that suggesting to 'fix remaining ports to work with clang' is
> > > just a nonsense. You are proposing to fork the development of all the
> > > programs which do not compile with clang. Often, upstream developers
> > > do not care about clang at all since it not being default compiler in
> > > Debian/Fedora/Whatever Linux. The project simply do not have resources
> > > to maintain the fork of 20K programs.
> >
> > We currently dont compile 4680 ports (out of 23857). Top 10 ports that
prevent
> > the most other ports from compiling together prevent 2222 ports from
> > compilation. So if we fixed those 10 ports we could be at around 2500
ports
> > not compiling. Thats quite far from your claim of forking 20k programs.
> Sorry, I cannot buy the argument. How many patches there are already
> in the ports tree to cope with clang incompatibility with gcc ? You may
> declare that all of them are application bugs, but it completely misses
> the point.
>
> >
> > > Looking from less amiable angle, you propose to knowingly break
significant
> > > and important piece of the project work. My belief is that switch
cannot
> > > be done before ports switch to the port-provided compiler.
> >
> > I believe majority of the broken ports is broken because their
maintainer
> > never saw them being broken with clang just because it's not the default
> > compiler. Thus by making it the default majority of the problems would
just
> > go away.
> 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 definitely see your point, but upstream should also be writing
correct/portable code.  Whenever a patch to fix a port is made, it is
actually mandatory to report it to upstream, and nag them to hell until
it's committed!  Most are very happy for this to happen; we've been
removing GNUisms from build scripts etc for years now (and I could link to
a "Thank you" email for all the build fixes I've sent upstream).

Sometimes, like the common bashism if [ a == b ] we bite the bullet and add
the extensions ourselves; sometimes upstream has an education on writing
portable code!

If we were all the same, would there be much point in being different?

Chris