From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Sep  6 02:21:51 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBC66BD6
 for <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>; Sat,  6 Sep 2014 02:21:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ig0-x231.google.com (mail-ig0-x231.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::231])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E47E10D7
 for <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>; Sat,  6 Sep 2014 02:21:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ig0-f177.google.com with SMTP id h18so94029igc.10
 for <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 19:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=24M5sf8ZEDPQnSsL6zy1XNdPpXzC7eiNXg6h4ILHYz4=;
 b=TFf1z+5woEY8qe9nSB6XSGoYm+cBpMwIRsQ4GA6DZqNAx8O6hVPMBf+jiv/vIVZQu2
 Or+7JGrXEVljMDrE/t0gl388IN38V4zP2wrBBLY8Do7N9mCi6RWbDfQr66J5U0+xxUFA
 5nLHhmd2szxGbbhyJ+7pDn7dzb+7tB17lzwRkwMThghUi/7DbIKE43C3ZYd+skyyZ8MI
 XVkobL4ntU9wK4QgYHOpsp73mJNdE/yHAFFgxnm0TAMuTvjVXi5RP5ijSsQOeUUP0KGl
 Oqo2DRAn7mtYwHKlggIei5VUGe02OZC6otyyiQYAzhViciOLRaxT4wUI5F+iMpkrs8rj
 Aheg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.96.65 with SMTP id cf1mr18770968icc.26.1409970110665;
 Fri, 05 Sep 2014 19:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.72.69 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 19:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 19:21:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGHfRMD0Tm14p+v=+6mp89eb4TSNenPSPn92XKC2XbM8m6Ut=g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Building clang in buildworld as part of the bootstrap process -- is
 it really necessary?
From: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>
To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: conrad.meyer@emc.com
X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain
 <freebsd-toolchain.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-toolchain>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-toolchain-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-toolchain/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-toolchain-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-toolchain-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 02:21:51 -0000

Hi all,
    One of the questions that came up from a co-worker is "why do I
need to build clang in buildworld if I already installed it from
ports"? I could see some valid reasons for doing this (one needs a
cross-compiler, one might need specific options that might not be set
in the ports version), but for native builds I would tend to agree
with this logic. With gcc it was wasteful building the compiler each
buildworld, but with clang it seems annoying continuing on this path
because the compile takes a long time to complete.
    Alternatively, would anyone be opposed to adding some logic to
automatically bypass the bootstrap compiler, i.e. add some logic to
Makefile.inc1 that would skip compiling clang/gcc if and only if the
target triplet and version met some required values?
Thanks!
-Garrett