Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:33:08 +0100 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compiling ports in a post-9.0-RELEASE world Message-ID: <4D8245D4.6070705@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <123121300367234@web45.yandex.ru> References: <4D7BED01.6000506@FreeBSD.org> <201103160028.01687.avilla@freebsd.org> <241821300263308@web137.yandex.ru> <201103160933.48175.avilla@freebsd.org> <105381300365591@web53.yandex.ru> <123121300367234@web45.yandex.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 17.03.2011 14:07, schrieb Konstantin Tokarev: > > > 17.03.2011, 15:39, "Konstantin Tokarev"<annulen@yandex.ru>: >> 16.03.2011, 11:33, "Alberto Villa"<avilla@freebsd.org>;: >> >>> On Wednesday 16 March 2011 09:15:07 Konstantin Tokarev wrote: >>>> From http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html >>>> >>>> "In addition to the language extensions listed here, Clang aims to >>> support >>>> a broad range of GCC extensions." >>>> >>>> So GCC extensions may also be considered as missing features. >>> gcc-isms also means "bad code which is nonetheless supported by gcc" >> >> In this case don't hesitate to file a bug against gcc :) Not necessarily. If it's a documented extension that you'd allowed (and even by sticking to the implicit gnu89 language default of GCC) then you'll hardly hear back anything else than "invalid, works as documented". > Let me elaborate my idea a bit. > > One may think that reporting bugs on GCC he supports development of > technology that FreeBSD does not endorse [1]. I don't think so. > > 1) Latest versions of GCC are more standard-compliant than earlier ones, > and bad written code tends to produce compilation errors with newer GCC. > For example, I've seen lots of legacy code written for GCC 3.x but failing > to compile with 4.x. 4.x branch is also being improved. This is based on the implicit assumption that the code were to be compiled with -std=c99 -pedantic-errors [-Wall] or similar. The majority of upstream packages doesn't follow such a purity paradigm, but knowingly or unbeknownst use -std=gnu89, and often GNU libc, extensions. Documented extensions have NOT USUALLY gone away in newer GCC minor releases. > 3) Projects with dead upstreams should be excluded from ports collection > someday, unless maintainers are willing to do "upstream" job. Folks using That's a separate discussion under the "deprecation campaign" subject. Please discuss that there. -- Matthias Andree
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D8245D4.6070705>