Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 14:53:22 +1000 From: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD Message-ID: <20100601145322.52546745@duncan.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <4C03DD4B.9020209@infracaninophile.co.uk> 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> <71B7DEC2-1ABE-4333-8C8E-02F899D2449B@samsco.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1005311456430.91047@fledge.watson.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1005311051440.12132@sea.ntplx.net> <4C03DD4B.9020209@infracaninophile.co.uk>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:01:15 +0100 Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote: > Is it really such a bad thing to have gcc as a build-dependency > for various ported applications? There are already ports that have gcc-4.4.4 as a dependency, and a few that still require gcc-3.4.6. [on my system, that's : ffmpeg-0.5.1_3,1 gegl-0.1.2_1 gimp-app-2.6.8_3,1 ufraw-0.16_3 x264-0.0.20100222_1 xsane-0.996_3 blas-1.0_4 lapack-3.2.1_1 py26-numpy-1.4.1,1 totem-2.30.1 vinagre-2.30.1 vino-2.28.2 and ...hmm... maybe I've already de-installed whatever was depending on 3.4.6...] Anyway, I don't see this trend slowing down any time soon, so I don't think that being able to compile all of ports is a reasonable constraint on bringing clang into the tree. I've changed my mind about bringing things into the tree since my last post on the subject. Being in-tree helps a lot with the ability to cross-build, which matters now that reasonably priced "beasty" machines are so much faster than reasonably-priced "puny" machines. Also, I've learned to love tmux... Also, the ability to have NO_LLVM in make.conf should (just like the other, similar switches) answer the rebuild-time issue. Just a few cents from the peanut gallery. FWIW I'm in favour, but I do understand Kostik's concern. I've been bitten by my share of compiler bugs and hardware bugs. Perhaps, even for a while after introduction, there should be a rule like "don't report a bug unless you've reproduced it on a system built with cc(=gcc)", just to keep those two issues separate. Perhaps with a side order of: any bug that you find in a clang-compiled system that goes away when re-built with gcc should be reported to the clang folk... Cheers, - -- Andrew -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkwEklYACgkQgzZZe5eEKMIf4ACffE00q3RsyElRE64q3tOFovI8 Dh0An2tQLYwVc74tvXJD72bbsul0j68V =oTaO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100601145322.52546745>