From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 31 15:34:10 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E15106567A; Mon, 31 May 2010 15:34:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dimitry@andric.com) Received: from tensor.andric.com (cl-327.ede-01.nl.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:7b8:2ff:146::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE568FC1E; Mon, 31 May 2010 15:34:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:b1e2:d68a:dece:f5eb] (unknown [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:b1e2:d68a:dece:f5eb]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tensor.andric.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 146815C43; Mon, 31 May 2010 17:34:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C03D6F2.90605@andric.com> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 17:34:10 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100528 Lanikai/3.1.1pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Kargl References: <20100529130240.GA99732@freebsd.org> <20100531144938.GA55909@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4C03D0C0.4050306@andric.com> <20100531151841.GA56247@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20100531151841.GA56247@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Brandon Gooch , Roman Divacky , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 15:34:10 -0000 On 2010-05-31 17:18, Steve Kargl wrote: > 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. You can boot it just fine, only the boot2 part is compiled with gcc, for now. Clang can successfully compile boot2; the issue is that its 'optimize for size' option is not as good as gcc at the moment. At the same time, boot2 is so tight on space, that it misses out by just a few 100 bytes. > 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? Clang/llvm is being fixed to produce small enough code to fit into the size limit that boot2 has (7 kiB IIRC); no ETA yet. The boot2 code itself should not have to be modified at all (although there might be ways to shrink that code too).