Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:22:50 +0100 From: Mark Blackman <mark@exonetric.com> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, Lars Engels <lars.engels@0x20.net>, toolchain@FreeBSD.org, Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th Message-ID: <4B225530-48DD-4671-AAF4-53BC46BB628B@exonetric.com> In-Reply-To: <20120912091520.GB22971@lonesome.com> References: <20120910211207.GC64920@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <504ED1FC.3090608@FreeBSD.org> <20120911092750.GF20762@e-new.0x20.net> <20120912091520.GB22971@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12 Sep 2012, at 10:15, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote: >> At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their = ports >> build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to. >=20 > I think this is a mis-representation. >=20 > Adding the requirement "your ports must work on clang" is adding an > ex-post-facto requirement. This creates the following matrix of what > we are implicitly asking maintainers to do: >=20 > (FreeBSD 7|8|9|10) * (amd64|arm|i386|powerpc|sparc64) * (base gcc|base = clang) >=20 > It is completely insane to expect anyone to be able to test in all of = those > environments, or even a tiny subset of them. This isn't what most = people > sign up for when they sign up to maintain ports. >=20 >> Those who don't run CURRENT won't notice, but those who do will have = to >> get their butts up and fix the ports >=20 > I think it's foolish to assume that maintainres don't have their butts = in > gear as it is. Please note, we have nearly 1300 PRs, hundreds of = ports with > build errors and/or PRs, and hundreds that fail on -current only. I = try to > advertise all these things the best I know how. Adding the hundreds = that > fail on -clang only and then blaming the maintainers is simply going = to be > counter-productive. I'd also guess that FreeBSD ports is probably the biggest exposure clang has ever seen to 3rd party code. I can't think of any other project=20 except maybe macports who try to run clang over some much 3rd party code = and=20 so FreeBSD ports is hitting all the bumps in the road that most people = get to ignore. - Mark
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B225530-48DD-4671-AAF4-53BC46BB628B>