Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 21:46:19 +0100 From: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: Michael Butler <imb@protected-networks.net>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: gcc compilation broken with SVN r264042 Message-ID: <8ED6200B-CBED-4B2A-8E9A-EB671B30F156@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140402202158.GA37846@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <533C61B8.7060809@protected-networks.net> <509CAA08-8F00-4ED8-81FF-A51F1ECDC15C@FreeBSD.org> <533C6ABE.2000801@protected-networks.net> <307BA2CF-E02A-4D82-B9E5-23AECAEA89DC@FreeBSD.org> <20140402202158.GA37846@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2 Apr 2014, at 21:21, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> = wrote: > Who is "we" in "even if we don't encourage it..."? =20 "We" is the FreeBSD project, collectively. For a larger list of things = that "we" recommend, look at the src.conf man page, which contains a = long list of things that we encourage, codified as the defaults for a = build. Building FreeBSD-HEAD/i386 with gcc is just one of a long list = of things that we don't encourage. =20 > In fact, this is a fairly dumb idea, Having a recommended compiler is a dumb idea? > and *we* should encourage building > the base system with as many different compilers as possible. I didn't say otherwise, which is why I'm working to fix this. I'd love = to have the Jenkins jobs set up with external toolchain support and be = able to plug in compilers from ports to try to build / boot / test the = base system on a regular basis. If you're developing FreeBSD or testing, then please compile with as = many other compilers as you have and contribute patches (or even just = detailed reports) if they find bugs in the code. If, however, you want to run FreeBSD in production... well, there's a = reason for those defaults. Building the base system with a compiler = that can't build the C++ stack that ports expects for FreeBSD 10 or 11 = on i386, for example, is going to make your life exciting... > It's called portability and allows one to find bugs that the > annointed compiler might miss or actually cause.=20 And, more importantly, it helps determine whether bugs are bugs in the = compiler or in the code that they're compiling. Being able to say that = a bug goes away with one compiler gives you a good hint that it's a = compiler bug. Or something in the source code that relies on undefined = behaviour... But all of that is irrelevant to this bug report, so perhaps we can end = this digression. Unless, of course, you can reproduce this failure and = would like to help fix it, in which case I'd be very grateful for your = assistance. David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8ED6200B-CBED-4B2A-8E9A-EB671B30F156>