From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 12 20:55:17 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [69.147.83.53]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 297601065670; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:55:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86EDF1523B6; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:53:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5050F65E.1040901@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:53:50 -1000 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erik Cederstrand References: <20120910211207.GC64920@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20120911104518.GF37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911120649.GA52235@freebsd.org> <20120911122122.GJ37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911123833.GA54483@freebsd.org> <848C813E-E6EC-4FAF-9374-B5583A077404@cederstrand.dk> <505055F7.9020809@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org, Roman Divacky , current@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th 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: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:55:17 -0000 On 9/12/2012 12:40 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > Den 12/09/2012 kl. 11.29 skrev Doug Barton : > >> On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote: >>> So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports >>> with USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang? >> >> Unfortunately it isn't that simple. We already have a >> statistically significant number of ports that don't even compile >> with gcc 4.2.1. How many compilers do we expect the users to >> install? :) > > If a port doesn't compile with the default compiler in base, I expect > that port to add a build dependency on the compiler that it actually > does compiles with. Yes, they do this now. The problem is that the set is growing, and the rate of growth is increasing. > Of course, I hope to not have 6 different > compilers installed on my system, but the list of build or runtime > dependencies are at the discretion of the port (maintainer). As you > (I think) said, we can't force port maintainers to patch their ports > to support clang. Those are unrelated issues. Please re-read the bits of my post that you snipped. The overwhelming majority of problems we have with compiling ports now would be fixed by having a modern version of gcc as the official (i.e., supported) "ports compiler." The clang efforts would be a parallel track. Doug