Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:55:33 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@FreeBSD.org>, Larry Baird <lab@maxwell.gta.com>, FreeBSD stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: merged llvm/clang 3.4 Message-ID: <1396043733.81853.164.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <AE8439D0-637D-45DA-8DD1-37888266FD44@FreeBSD.org> References: <20140328165121.13797.qmail@mailgate.gta.com> <6F2AEDEC-4173-45B0-9C21-1D80E33660F6@FreeBSD.org> <1396029772.81853.150.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <B373566C-03DB-4508-9088-4E343A2638F5@FreeBSD.org> <CAG=rPVcM6KOAd2y8zyYP6GJmQ3EkVu%2Bm-r1OcPmS0TUQGKy=AA@mail.gmail.com> <5335E715.3090603@FreeBSD.org> <AE8439D0-637D-45DA-8DD1-37888266FD44@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 22:35 +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2014, at 22:18, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > Signed PGP part
> > On 2014-03-28 16:25:42 -0400, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> You need to rebuild the system anyway, if you want debug
> > >> information, so nothing changed? If you insist on wanting to use
> > >> the crummy gdb in base, which should have been axed years ago,
> > >> then just use DEBUG_FLAGS=-gdwarf-2, otherwise use ports gdb,
> > >> which any sensible person should do.
> > >>
> > >> -Dimitry
> > >>
> > >
> > > This kind of thing is OK for HEAD, but to me seems like something
> > > which is not OK for a stable branch.
> > >
> > > Before your change: "cc -g" from base + gdb in base = can debug
> > > After your change: "cc -g" from base + gdb in base = cannot
> > > debug
> > >
> > > Is it possible to modify clang in base, so that on the stable
> > > branches, "cc -g" will output dwarf-2 instead of dwarf-4 by
> > > default?
> > >
> > > I understand that installing gdb from ports, changing compiler
> > > flags from -g to -gdwarf-2 in Makefiles, or switching to compiling
> > > with gcc are all reasonable workarounds, but this seems a bit like
> > > POLA for a stable branch.
> >
> > Yeah, it is really unpleasant.
> >
> > Maybe we should do something like this for stable/9 and stable/10
> > branches (not tested).
> >
> > --- contrib/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp
> > +++ contrib/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp
> > @@ -2628,8 +2628,9 @@ void Clang::ConstructJob(Compilation &C, const Job
> > CmdArgs.push_back("-gdwarf-4");
> > else if (!A->getOption().matches(options::OPT_g0) &&
> > !A->getOption().matches(options::OPT_ggdb0)) {
> > - // Default is dwarf-2 for darwin.
> > - if (getToolChain().getTriple().isOSDarwin())
> > + // Default is dwarf-2 for Darwin and FreeBSD.
> > + if (getToolChain().getTriple().isOSDarwin() ||
> > + getToolChain().getTriple().getOS() == llvm::Triple::FreeBSD)
> > CmdArgs.push_back("-gdwarf-2");
> > else
> > CmdArgs.push_back("-g");
>
> I'm now testing something similar, which also tests the FreeBSD version,
> so it can be applied to head and then MFC'd. I will commit it soon.
>
> -Dimitry
>
Why test the version? The tools on head can't handle dwarf4 any better
than the tools on the stable branches. I don't understand the sudden
change in mindset that after 20 years of freebsd providing a completely
usable development environment in base, now all of a sudden it's okay to
not do that anymore.
It seems fine to me to say "If you want better tools, use the latest
ports" but not fine to say "If you want any tools at all, use the latest
ports (oh and by the way, good luck with cross-building if you're not an
amd64 person)."
-- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1396043733.81853.164.camel>