Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:23:29 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clang and ports Message-ID: <4F2A5611.8090707@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4F2A3E0F.6060707@gmail.com> References: <4F2A3E0F.6060707@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig72A1AAB283A2F2E88C552B3A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 02/02/2012 07:41, Joshua Isom wrote: > I know that build cluster lists some ports that have problems with > clang, but it doesn't say if they're tested or not. I set up a clang > jail to test out things before switching to clang for general use. Whe= n > I try running mencoder to encode a file to x264, it seg faults. Changin= g > options doesn't change anything. A gdb backtrace points to x264 being > the problem. Everything compiles and installs, but the build's > useless. Is clang ready for ports, or is it only safe for kernel/world= ? It is certainly true that more ports will compile with the base gcc-4.2 compiler than will compile with clang. It's also true that of the ports that do compile, there will be more run-time failures with clang than with gcc. At the last test it was something like 18,000 out of 23,000 ports that built successfully with clang -- remember though that figure (a) includes a lot of ports that don't use a compiler at all (like shell scripts or pure-perl code) and (b) some of the failures are because a dependency failed to compile, which blocks testing on anything further down the tree, or for reasons completely unrelated to the compiler, like being unable to fetch distfiles. See: http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang I personally have a FreeBSD 9-STABLE VM where everything (system+ports) is compiled with clang, but it's just for testing, has nothing particularly valuable on it and no one would care if it laid down and died. I am planning on upgrading my primary machine to 9.0 sometime soon, and while still undecided whether to build the system with clang or not, I certainly won't be enabling it for ports just yet. Cheers, Matthew --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW --------------enig72A1AAB283A2F2E88C552B3A Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk8qVhgACgkQ8Mjk52CukIy79ACfZh/6q4yq9bZ9EtaGr3Am1vRo aXgAn0fBDgcGz7AnFKU3CC7bsDmoXVm1 =F2Fx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig72A1AAB283A2F2E88C552B3A--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F2A5611.8090707>