Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:34:48 -0500 To: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD ARM <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> Subject: Re: RFT: Please help testing the llvm/clang 3.5.0 import Message-ID: <21650.55288.425711.209975@jerusalem.litteratus.org> In-Reply-To: <D9C5A8D1-2158-4B37-9C9C-067A4DDE6E44@FreeBSD.org> References: <8598B1D4-5485-426F-B6D6-22BF26AC5FE1@FreeBSD.org> <CAGHfRMBPkQiTgW0Eahkoe1QwArBst-BZ-Lawor_CDda1x8K9xg@mail.gmail.com> <D9C5A8D1-2158-4B37-9C9C-067A4DDE6E44@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dimitry Andric writes: > > - Could a "MK_CLANG_ALL_TARGETS" or something similar option be > > added to src.opts.mk to fine tune this process for those of us who > > don't want to build a cross-compile toolchain every iteration for our > > target MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH? > > I would be fine with something like this, as long as it is turned off by > default, or if it is only used for the bootstrap stages. It is actually > an extremely useful feature of clang that you can target multiple > architectures with one compiler binary. Point of information: this seems useful for developers, and (almost entirely) useless for everyone else. Are there other cohorts that want this badly? If that's correct, and there's a simple switch for configuration ... why should this default to what's useful for the (much?) smaller number of people? About what am I ignorant? Curiously, Robert Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21650.55288.425711.209975>