From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 30 14:29:58 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F60B106566B; Sat, 30 May 2009 14:29:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gabor@FreeBSD.org) Received: from server.mypc.hu (server.mypc.hu [87.229.73.95]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385C68FC08; Sat, 30 May 2009 14:29:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gabor@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by server.mypc.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E544914D5D70; Sat, 30 May 2009 16:29:56 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at t-hosting.hu Received: from server.mypc.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server.mypc.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id uavuA-vrdzIy; Sat, 30 May 2009 16:29:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.105] (catv-80-98-231-64.catv.broadband.hu [80.98.231.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by server.mypc.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B430B14D2545; Sat, 30 May 2009 16:29:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4A2142E1.7000607@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 16:29:53 +0200 From: Gabor Kovesdan User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ed Schouten References: <20090529123633.GM48776@hoeg.nl> <20090530140800.GR48776@hoeg.nl> <4A213F84.1000704@FreeBSD.org> <20090530142152.GS48776@hoeg.nl> In-Reply-To: <20090530142152.GS48776@hoeg.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, gerald@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [Patch] Proposal: USE_GNU89 switch X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 14:29:58 -0000 Ed Schouten escribió: > * Gabor Kovesdan wrote: > >> I don't think it's a good idea. This knob is completely superfluous and >> thus should be avoided. One can just add -std to CFLAGS from a port >> Makefile. Forced build are also possible without this stuff, you can set >> this in /etc/make.conf. >> > > So how can we be sure all C compilers implement this switch? In > bsd.port.mk I see some traces of ICC support. Using this approach it > would also be possible to remap certain C standards to different > compilers. > If ICC were supported I would agree with you that a general solution would be the best, but unfortunately ICC isn't actually supported. It's not a trivial task to work on ICC support because you need a license to do so because it is considered a derived work. I wanted to work on ICC support before but this was the barrier that stopped me. Probably netchild@ can tell you more, he has a license and he used to work on ICC support. As for LLVM, probably it won't work out for the whole ports tree. I don't know what's the portmgr opinion on this, if we start to use LLVM in Ports Collection, we should reconsider the knob, though. > Really, I really don't care how it's done, whether it's a flag or added > to the compiler flags directly. I'm just saying adding it to CFLAGS > directly sounds like a very bad idea. Adding it to /etc/make.conf sounds > even worse, because it probably only confuses (autoconf) scripts that > try to figure out a way to make the compiler speak C99. > I didn't say one should add it permanently to make.conf, it was just an example how a forced C99 build can be done without introducing new knobs. Cheers, -- Gabor Kovesdan FreeBSD Volunteer EMAIL: gabor@FreeBSD.org .:|:. gabor@kovesdan.org WEB: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~gabor .:|:. http://kovesdan.org