From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 2 19:10:06 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA8C7106566C; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 19:10:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63D158FC0A; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 19:10:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.2.112] (host86-147-11-178.range86-147.btcentralplus.com [86.147.11.178]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E8A3D46B53; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 15:10:03 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Robert N. M. Watson" In-Reply-To: <742085CD-7F6F-4879-9FFD-517EC3203D52@bsdimp.com> Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 20:10:00 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4D934AF4.9080503@FreeBSD.org> <742085CD-7F6F-4879-9FFD-517EC3203D52@bsdimp.com> To: Warner Losh X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: mdf@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric , freebsd-hackers Subject: Re: Include file search path X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 19:10:06 -0000 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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? Robert=