From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 2 22:29:54 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2DC6106564A for ; Sun, 2 May 2010 22:29:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from corky1951@comcast.net) Received: from qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.80]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93EFB8FC1A for ; Sun, 2 May 2010 22:29:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.72]) by qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ClQM1e0041ZXKqc58mGfUY; Sun, 02 May 2010 22:16:39 +0000 Received: from comcast.net ([98.203.142.76]) by omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id CmGd1e0091f6R9u3hmGd71; Sun, 02 May 2010 22:16:39 +0000 Received: by comcast.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 02 May 2010 15:16:35 -0700 Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 15:16:35 -0700 From: Charlie Kester To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20100502221635.GB326@comcast.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <4BDD28E2.8010201@rawbw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mutt 1.5.20 X-Composer: Vim 7.2 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: Subject: Re: GSoC: Making ports work with clang X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 22:29:54 -0000 On Sun 02 May 2010 at 14:03:06 PDT Andrius Mork??nas wrote: >On Sun, 02 May 2010 23:17:00 +0300, Eitan Adler wrote: >>Good - and those 30% of ports will help improve clang++ even more. >Some probably will, we submit a lot of bug reports for clang/llvm. > >>Hopefully over time that number will increase to 100% and we will be >>able to say goodbye to gcc for good. >That won't happen, at least not anytime soon and not until we get rid of >[old] poorly written ports from the ports tree. Another problem is ports >using horrible or less horrible GNU extensions for C or C++, clang will >not support all of them. So we will still need gcc for some things, just >like we need USE_GCC=whatever now, because some ports don't compile with >gcc42 from base. I just hope we can get the majority of ports working >with clang and keep the number of ports that need gcc as low as possible. > As things stand today, we don't know exactly which ports have the kind of dependency on gcc that you describe. If this project gets us closer to that list, it will have been worthwhile. Once we know which ports are unavoidably dependent on gcc, we can start exploring alternatives to them. More projects for GSOC and others looking for ways to contribute! Sounds like fun!