From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 30 15:32:59 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 AD9AD1065785; Sat, 30 May 2009 15:32:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from db@db.net) Received: from diana.db.net (diana.db.net [66.113.102.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E4C8FC22; Sat, 30 May 2009 15:32:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from db@db.net) Received: from diana.db.net ([66.113.102.10] helo=localhost ident=mailnull) by diana.db.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1MAQ43-0002nH-Bc; Sat, 30 May 2009 09:01:39 -0600 Received: from diana.db.net ([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost) (envelope-from ) id 1MAQ42-000P1C-5M; Sat, 30 May 2009 11:01:38 -0400 Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 11:01:38 -0400 From: Diane Bruce To: Ed Schouten Message-ID: <20090530150138.GA95470@night.db.net> References: <20090529123633.GM48776@hoeg.nl> <20090530140800.GR48776@hoeg.nl> <4A213F84.1000704@FreeBSD.org> <20090530142152.GS48776@hoeg.nl> <4A2142E1.7000607@FreeBSD.org> <20090530143443.GT48776@hoeg.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090530143443.GT48776@hoeg.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, gerald@FreeBSD.org, Gabor Kovesdan 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 15:33:00 -0000 Hi, On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 04:34:43PM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: > * Gabor Kovesdan wrote: > > 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. As the plan is to have both gcc + clang in -9 we are still going to run into this problem. I would expect a lot of users are going to just expect ports to work with clang as well as gcc. > LLVM/Clang support is trivial. Erwin Lansing fired up an experimental > ports build for us and the numbers are *very* promising. There are still > some issues with the compiler itself, but so far it seems the only > architectural change to the tree that needs to be made, is a hint to > fall back to C89. By the time FreeBSD-9 is released clang support will be solid and all ports will compile with clang as well as gcc. Clang was chosen because of their committment to have full gcc compatibility. > > This is not just about LLVM/Clang support. If the GCC folks ever decide > to switch to C99 by default, we'll have exactly the same issue. Agreed. I don't see the harm in trying Ed_'s diff on a exp. run with both gcc and clang and compare a gcc run with a stock run. Perhaps this is something Itetcu could help with. - Diane -- - db@FreeBSD.org db@db.net http://www.db.net/~db