Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 11:05:09 -0800 From: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: FreeBSD ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=llvm=90 ignored? Message-ID: <A2DA2370-17AA-427C-817D-D8E692410C3B@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20201205150243.GA13965@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <4F024E2C-3657-4FB9-A55B-6FA445EDD21B.ref@yahoo.com> <4F024E2C-3657-4FB9-A55B-6FA445EDD21B@yahoo.com> <20201205150243.GA13965@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2020-Dec-5, at 07:02, Steve Kargl <sgk at = troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 01:18:34AM -0800, Mark Millard wrote: >> Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote on: >>>=20 >>> Well, I guess that pretty much kills LLVM_DEFAULT for any >>> modern hardware (even a 8 year old laptop) that uses drm >>> unless a user wants base-system llvm, llvm90, and llvm10=20 >>> installed. One will certainly be able to compile any >>> c/c++ thrown ones way. >>=20 >> LLVM's API seems to be unstable enough from LLVM release to >> LLVM release that maintaining many-release build compatibility >> for projects using the LLVM API is not all that common. >=20 > I'm well aware the llvm API instability, which comes back > to the irrelevance of LLVM_DEFAULT. Someday llvm may get > it's act together. I frequently have LLVM set to more recent than the from-svn /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk indicates, for other reasons than minimizing the number of LLVM builds/installs. Seems to work fine for such in my limited context. =3D=3D=3D Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com ( dsl-only.net went away in early 2018-Mar)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A2DA2370-17AA-427C-817D-D8E692410C3B>