Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:53:50 -1000
From:      Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk>
Cc:        toolchain@freebsd.org, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th
Message-ID:  <5050F65E.1040901@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <AEC09063-30C4-46AF-A676-0299B2313A10@cederstrand.dk>
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> <AEC09063-30C4-46AF-A676-0299B2313A10@cederstrand.dk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/12/2012 12:40 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> Den 12/09/2012 kl. 11.29 skrev Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>:
> 
>> 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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5050F65E.1040901>