Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:55:22 -0500 From: Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: FreeBSD current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: System headers with clang? Message-ID: <589d032a-7b71-4ff1-8adf-f5e49e87696c@email.android.com> In-Reply-To: <83FC19FA-BD52-4383-9ABE-708161597B85@mac.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1110091229550.43656@lrosenman.dyndns.org> <4E942FF1.9000805@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1110110830200.21480@lrosenman.dyndns.org> <4E9449F2.2000801@FreeBSD.org> <4E944BA5.4080506@lerctr.org> <83FC19FA-BD52-4383-9ABE-708161597B85@mac.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
I didn't say bug for bug, just not generate stupid errors like the ffs one. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> wrote: On Oct 11, 2011, at 6:59 AM, Larry Rosenman wrote: > We will NOT support clang as the compiler for lsof unless the system headers work the same way as gcc's do. That apparently means you won't support clang then, because it's not intended to be (or ever going to be) fully bug-for-bug "compatible" with GCC. In this case, at least, clang is reporting legitimate issues which should be fixed, even if folks continue to build lsof with GCC from now until the end of days. To echo a word someone else just used, I'm baffled as to why you would hold such a position. Regards, -- -Chuckhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?589d032a-7b71-4ff1-8adf-f5e49e87696c>