From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 31 22:44:22 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9FD11065673; Mon, 31 May 2010 22:44:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanefbsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DEBD8FC0C; Mon, 31 May 2010 22:44:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws10 with SMTP id 10so2152397vws.13 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 15:44:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1STNFrCkEnIRJ/Dm0VRpfvR9cluBqzI2xoKtTsiZ0XY=; b=bYeG6YBsxkPE6iAutqVvxTHJOfQl8jFD7cKhvT1rcUpEMyrUMFfiM31UY0gW29rylu SXwYRPWfCs+rv36Nmd4MJyOJ0Dmj7M1BT796gx7MP99VDve+eDIrckttRWQ+Q036BRaM q+V7I8uRu0idfjpOHmCcX8lIKKKeEEBXHZOX0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=bAyLizn8otJII5p4T53NgXBN/bwoHKtz2wmWbygyLLCoFCPU8jDoLPHDdNpTkPFTw6 sxu//B4bq1/3YL+BO1hjab51VHX3F/ap5/JDjTEyFLuVoB7cDOuYaYlwsscX7WCvJYKL 1CUJ6jiCqBVFsYnMiVgc0PGgyPzAPCBEkgfDg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.188.70 with SMTP id cz6mr803319qcb.161.1275345861362; Mon, 31 May 2010 15:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.190.83 with HTTP; Mon, 31 May 2010 15:44:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100531113456.GB42524@freebsd.org> References: <20100529130240.GA99732@freebsd.org> <20100530135859.GI83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <508DA8CE-749A-46B4-AF0B-392DB08CBBCD@samsco.org> <20100531095617.GR83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20100531112529.GA42524@freebsd.org> <20100531113456.GB42524@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 15:44:21 -0700 Message-ID: From: Garrett Cooper To: Roman Divacky Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Attilio Rao , Kostik Belousov , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 22:44:22 -0000 On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Roman Divacky wrote: >> > there are no known clang bugs (at least known to me) related to FreeBSD >> > >> > in other words - at this point you can compile FreeBSD with clang (both >> > in the version in clangbsd) and it "works" (for people who tested it) >> > on amd64 and i386 >> >> I don't mean about FreeBSD, but about CLANG itself. >> It would be very depressing to loose many hours on kernel races before >> to discover it was a compiler deficiency, for example. > > thats what I mean - we are not aware of any bugs in clang itself that > harm FreeBSD (on i386/amd64). > > btw. there are 68 open bug reports against gcc 4.2.1 in gcc bugzilla. Working with known deficiencies in a given system is much easier to deal with than unknown deficiencies in a new system. I think that's the point that several folks are trying to address. Unless there is a) sufficient testcases to exercise each piece of functionality, and/or b) enough soak time, you're playing a bit of a dangerous game with the unknown. I personally would much rather have the glue in place to switch between compilers and have things default to the base version of gcc than just magically switch the compiler over to clang. But I like my bikesheds painted gray. Thanks, -Garrett