Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:48:49 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> Cc: "toolchain@freebsd.org" <toolchain@freebsd.org>, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th Message-ID: <20120911164849.GL37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <1347380827.22767.YahooMailNeo@web113519.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> 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> <1347380827.22767.YahooMailNeo@web113519.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--hTKW8p8tUZ/8vLMe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 09:27:07AM -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > Hello; > =9A > Just my $0.02. > =9A > ----- Original Message ----- > =9A... > > 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 > > I do strongly oppose the attempt to drain the freebsd resources by > > forcing porters to port third-party code to other compiler. > >=20 >=20 > I can only speak for Apache OpenOffice but since Apple did the switch > already we are feeling a growing pressure to port OpenOffice to clang. >=20 > For the time being we need gcc but we would really prefer something > more up to date than gcc 4.2.1 + fixes. In other words, yes making > clang the default may sound drastic but I am OK with killing base > gcc and if clang is what is left I can live with it. But allowing ports to select the compiler is the main point of my response, at least in the port part of it. I mean global configuration, and not referenced the existing per-port knobs (USE_GCC/WANT_GCC whatever). I would expect the portmgr to select some gcc (or clang or pcc or anything they find suitable) version and use it for a moment for ports. I do not claim that portmgr would consider 4.2.1 as the base for the switch but this is probably the least intrusive road right now. I do expect that selection shall be based on some measurement of the most supported compiler, and my gut feeling is that it ends as a version of gcc. Definitely, FreeBSD project is not a suitable place to make an efforts to port all existing OSS to clang, despite the opposite claims of the clang proponents. --hTKW8p8tUZ/8vLMe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlBPa3EACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4hvlQCcCIj4WKY4lyUzHciIAZC0CY2T tegAoMH/ULxvEiDOlL9x0wecDWCOiUQK =mZPh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hTKW8p8tUZ/8vLMe--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120911164849.GL37286>