Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 20:10:00 +0100 From: "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: mdf@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Include file search path Message-ID: <F5CE9765-FFF0-439C-9156-51912EEE0C1C@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <742085CD-7F6F-4879-9FFD-517EC3203D52@bsdimp.com> References: <AANLkTi=BiUVnzsGg83wwWPHjnTDR=XukhJ3UK6Bd5hvF@mail.gmail.com> <4D934AF4.9080503@FreeBSD.org> <BB9CDEF6-5B59-47F3-8873-78D71E39BF3E@bsdimp.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1104021925110.67810@fledge.watson.org> <742085CD-7F6F-4879-9FFD-517EC3203D52@bsdimp.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 2 Apr 2011, at 19:47, Warner Losh wrote: >> (2) Working clang/LLVM cross-compile of FreeBSD. This seems like a basic >> requirement to adopt clang/LLVM, and as far as I'm aware that's not yet a >> resolved issue? > > 0 work has been done here to my knowledge. The world view for clang and our in-tree gcc differ which makes it a challenge. That's disappointing. I seem to recall it's more an issue of our build integration with clang/LLVM than an underlying issue in clang/LLVM? >> We (Cambridge) are currently bringing up FreeBSD on a new soft-core 64-bit MIPS platform. We're already using a non-base gcc for our boot loader work, and plan to move to using clang/LLVM later in the year. The base system seems a bit short on detail when it comes to the above, currently. > > Yes. I've had to add about a dozen changes so far to get close to building with xdev compilers. A similar number are needed to make it easy to configure and add systree support, I think. Sounds like great progress -- do you think we'll ship 9.0 in a "just works" state with regard to this? Roberthelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F5CE9765-FFF0-439C-9156-51912EEE0C1C>