Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:03:14 +0100 From: Rene Ladan <rene@freebsd.org> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: "doc@FreeBSD.org" <doc@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] [patch] Clang section for Porters Handbook Message-ID: <e890cae60911170403i234fda84t35ddddf7f27ff173@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20091116232954.GA6511@lonesome.com> References: <4B01D5C9.4080207@freebsd.org> <20091116232954.GA6511@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/11/17 Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>: > Looks nice. Here are some ideas. > >> <para>A future version of &os; will likely have the Clang C/C++ >> compiler as its base compiler. Some modifications to the Ports >> Collection are necessary. In general, these are <quote>write proper >> ports</quote> and <quote>write proper source code</quote>. > > To me, this last sentence is worded a little awkwardly (partly because > of the tense). How about: > > In general, these involve <quote>generalizing the port</quote> and > <quote>making the source code portable</quote>. > This indeeds sounds better. >> so existing occurences have to be removed. No concensus has yet > > consensus > aspell also found 'occurrences', I should have spell checked it earlier ... >> <para>The maximum useable optimization level is 3. Level 4 is > > usable (don't feel bad, I had to look it up) > >> <para>Some temporary hacks that might be used if all else fails:</para> > > I'm almost wondering if the c89 hack might be moved to here, but I'm not sure. > Isn't this more like a flag to be able to compile old code? In this case the c89 flag is not a hack, given that the code is following the standard (here gnu89). See p4 revision 170700 Regards, Rene
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e890cae60911170403i234fda84t35ddddf7f27ff173>