From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 5 20:16:46 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A89106566B; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 20:16:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A968FC12; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 20:16:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10C6146B4C; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:16:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (smtp.hudson-trading.com [209.249.190.9]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 199CB8A009; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:16:45 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Doug Barton Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:08:40 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/7.3-CBSD-20101102; KDE/4.4.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201101042051.p04KpSGk054564@svn.freebsd.org> <20110105185944.GA30449@freebsd.org> <4D24CD98.9080906@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4D24CD98.9080906@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201101051508.40337.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:16:45 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.3 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=4.2 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on bigwig.baldwin.cx Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Alexander Best , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric Subject: Re: svn commit: r216977 - in head/libexec/rtld-elf: amd64 i386 X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:16:46 -0000 On Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:59:20 pm Doug Barton wrote: > On 01/05/2011 10:59, Alexander Best wrote: > > > judging from the discussion going on right now it seems those flags will be > > grouped together to form a new variable. so things will probably change shortly > > and fixing the order is probably not necessary. > > Much better to fix the problem properly now than to rely on future work > that may or may not happen. I realize that you alluded to this later in > your message, but I think as a general principle this is worth reinforcing. > > > some people have proposed hacking into clang which i personally think is a very > > bad idea. why not contact the clang developers? they might like the idea of a > > switch disabling all advanced extensions for every architecture? > > I agree with this. We have a very awkward situation right now with lots > of local hacks in our version of gcc that in an ideal world we would not > replicate with clang; particularly considering the much lower barrier to > entry when it comes to contributing things back. My suggestion was that we ask clang to add a '-mno-whatever' and hopefully we could convince gcc to follow suit. clang developers seem to be fairly receptive, so I was hoping one of our clang liaisons could suggest it. :) -- John Baldwin