From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 13 00:31:52 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C261065670; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:31:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dnebdal@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com (mail-ie0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D3978FC17; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:31:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iebc12 with SMTP id c12so5084498ieb.13 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:31:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=AZ2CeRcMCn7sN18j45q+1of1cCMCWF5D43ZW/5ijatg=; b=kIsw+9ilLDEeyGC3eJ5Me7dQidISpwKtATCy5G6dI4Cg3HPF75umZt2s09NjnqwdpZ K1KPHBSHqt7SpT61UvrLOVHw18V3bVwdpjhR3mvd1rC4qffsnLEhcSZF2qWemQidO8g7 ZXeT+dp7vbr0SFZJOdsp+IV8bDw5UFF70WXX6MvR0XfiAb91nt4j6v4ZYW4N/letfxOJ oIQ5fE5c9i96VdFon7A9fWLXpxeIdkIqJ/YSujClDtkPD+CUOqpWZECk5jDoa5h89p+J tcWg8st/RaJBzXrAY1GLS5lHapFWRH0tU0Q9DbqAnODz/kOkImhFa0LXm8EyqqN3vbQF k6xg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.237.41 with SMTP id uz9mr212557igc.43.1347496311063; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.60.133 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:31:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5050F7CF.4070204@FreeBSD.org> 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> <20120912072209.65bc5e3d@scorpio> <5050F7CF.4070204@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 02:31:50 +0200 Message-ID: From: Daniel Nebdal To: Doug Barton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Jerry , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:31:52 -0000 On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 9/12/2012 1:22 AM, Jerry wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:29:27 -1000 >> Doug Barton articulated: >> >>> What we need to do is what I and others have been asking to do for >>> years. We need to designate a modern version of gcc (no less than 4.6) >>> as the official default ports compiler, and rework whatever is needed >>> to support this. Fortunately, that goal is much more easily achieved >>> than fixing ports to build and run with clang. (It's harder than it >>> sounds because there are certain key libs that define some paths >>> depending on what compiler they were built with, but still easier >>> than dealing with clang in the short term.) >> >> That is a well thought out, highly intuitive and completely doable >> idea. Therefore it will be ignored. > > No, it'll be ignored because I suggested it. :) > >> It seems that the FreeBSD authors are more concerned with the >> licensing language of GCC than in getting a fully functioning port's >> compiler into the FreeBSD base system. > > Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting putting the "ports compiler" into > the base. I'm suggesting that it be managed as a port, just like pkg is. > This works fine for the ports that are already hard-coding compiler > dependencies, and mostly worked for me back when I get it a test run > when I made the suggestion years ago. The few glitches I (and others who > have done it since) ran into just need some elbow grease applied. > > By keeping ports-related things in the ports tree we gain a huge amount > of agility, and lose the concerns about licensing in the base. It's a > win/win. > > Doug > Three-ish things: a) Doesn't that remove all incentives for eventually converging on just one compiler (bar some specific exceptions)? a.1) Isn't that bad? b) Doesn't that mean that at some future point, we'll have to jump the ports compiler to a newer (probably much newer) version, with all the maintenance fun of that? c) I guess this still lets me use clang for most ports if I really wish to? (I've compiled most ports with clang for a while, and the speed + useful error messages would be hard to give up...) I'm not sure if those are big or small issues - probably a matter of taste. :) -- Daniel Nebdal