From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 11 17:51:13 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83661065672 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:51:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from asmtpout023.mac.com (asmtpout023.mac.com [17.148.16.98]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7A88FC13 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:51:13 +0000 (UTC) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from cswiger1.apple.com ([17.209.4.71]) by asmtp023.mac.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTPSA id <0LSW0063JUSHOW20@asmtp023.mac.com> for freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:50:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.4.6813,1.0.211,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-10-11_05:2011-10-11, 2011-10-11, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1110110177 From: Chuck Swiger In-reply-to: <4E944BA5.4080506@lerctr.org> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:50:40 -0700 Message-id: <83FC19FA-BD52-4383-9ABE-708161597B85@mac.com> References: <4E942FF1.9000805@FreeBSD.org> <4E9449F2.2000801@FreeBSD.org> <4E944BA5.4080506@lerctr.org> To: Larry Rosenman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: FreeBSD current Subject: Re: System headers with clang? 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: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:51:14 -0000 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, -- -Chuck