Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2025 02:55:12 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> Cc: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org" <dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org>, "dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org" <dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: git: c3450ad127e9 - main - clang: re-downgrade implicit int/function declarations to warning only Message-ID: <Z5mYkCwXYsH-CsdQ@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <90D8C9F1-0634-44E5-B5B5-20455A91E042@FreeBSD.org> References: <202306222111.35MLBAqB066211@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <E1BA0D85-6246-4901-B7F4-B2062A54202A@freebsd.org> <90D8C9F1-0634-44E5-B5B5-20455A91E042@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 12:20:51AM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 28 Jan 2025, at 19:32, Jessica Clarke wrote: > > On 22 Jun 2023, at 22:11, Dimitry Andric wrote: > >> > >> clang: re-downgrade implicit int/function declarations to warning only > >> > >> [...] > >> As noted in the upstream discussion, there are many programs that fail > >> to configure or build correctly, if these warnings are turned into > >> errors by default. > >> > >> Note that most affected programs in ports are relatively old, and are > >> unlikely to be fixed by actually adjusting their declarations, but by > >> compiling with -std=gnu89, which downgrades the errors back to warning > >> again. Lots of tedious work for very little gain. > > > > This remains as a downstream divergence 1.5 years later, but I do not > > think we should be carrying this indefinitely. Software needs to build > > with upstream LLVM, and the fact that many ports do not is now biting > > us for CheriBSD where we use our own external toolchain that does not > > have such a diff. In my opinion this should be reverted for FreeBSD 15 > > and it's long time for ports people to step up or have the broken ports > > removed; we can't keep going on like this with abandonware holding back > > forward progress. > > While I agree, at the least a full exp-run should be done, and even then > you can't be entirely sure if ports that build are built the same as > before, for example due to bad configure tests. So this is potentially a > massive undertaking. Can we actually do an exp-run to identify affected ports and at least get the idea of the fallout size? I've recently hunted one such subtle bug exposed by GCC 14 so yeah I fear there'd be a lot, but we need to start with something. I presume fixing it won't be particularly hard, just tedious. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Z5mYkCwXYsH-CsdQ>