Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:08:40 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r216977 - in head/libexec/rtld-elf: amd64 i386 Message-ID: <201101051508.40337.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4D24CD98.9080906@FreeBSD.org> References: <201101042051.p04KpSGk054564@svn.freebsd.org> <20110105185944.GA30449@freebsd.org> <4D24CD98.9080906@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:59:20 pm Doug Barton wrote: > On 01/05/2011 10:59, Alexander Best wrote: > > > judging from the discussion going on right now it seems those flags will be > > grouped together to form a new variable. so things will probably change shortly > > and fixing the order is probably not necessary. > > Much better to fix the problem properly now than to rely on future work > that may or may not happen. I realize that you alluded to this later in > your message, but I think as a general principle this is worth reinforcing. > > > some people have proposed hacking into clang which i personally think is a very > > bad idea. why not contact the clang developers? they might like the idea of a > > switch disabling all advanced extensions for every architecture? > > I agree with this. We have a very awkward situation right now with lots > of local hacks in our version of gcc that in an ideal world we would not > replicate with clang; particularly considering the much lower barrier to > entry when it comes to contributing things back. My suggestion was that we ask clang to add a '-mno-whatever' and hopefully we could convince gcc to follow suit. clang developers seem to be fairly receptive, so I was hoping one of our clang liaisons could suggest it. :) -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201101051508.40337.jhb>