Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:56:21 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, toolchain@freebsd.org, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th Message-ID: <CDE88355-8F5A-4803-AF37-C7D10D1F7146@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1209111131500.21183@sea.ntplx.net> 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> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1209111131500.21183@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >=20 >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote: >>>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > [ snip ] >=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > This is a good point! Alternate compilers are being used on other OS distributions, like Arch = Linux, Gentoo Linux, etc, so encouraging external developers to = correct/simplify their Makefiles and build infrastructures is a good = thing (and plus, it makes switching to other compilers like icc, pcc, = etc easier). You're going to run into almost the same problem when trying to get = stuff to cross-compile for multiple targets, so there's no reason why = FreeBSD/Linux should not strive to get others to hardcode less. I wouldn't consider ports to be a stopgap for the clang switchover as = much as correctness/performance. Broken third-party software can be = fixed, but if the underlying foundation doesn't deliver sane code or = severely regresses performance (runtime is more important than building = IMO because I'd rather have code take a little while longer to compile = if the end-result runs faster, and ultimately runtime performance = affects build performance), then there's no point in trying to switch = over yet. Thanks, -Garrett=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CDE88355-8F5A-4803-AF37-C7D10D1F7146>