Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>