From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 11 13:01:17 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030AE1065677; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:01:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erik@cederstrand.dk) Received: from csmtp3.one.com (csmtp3.one.com [91.198.169.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B60BF8FC19; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:01:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.41] (unknown [176.222.238.90]) by csmtp3.one.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 571002413F04; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:52:21 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1486\)) From: Erik Cederstrand In-Reply-To: <20120911123833.GA54483@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:52:20 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <848C813E-E6EC-4FAF-9374-B5583A077404@cederstrand.dk> References: <20120910211207.GC64920@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20120911104518.GF37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911120649.GA52235@freebsd.org> <20120911122122.GJ37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911123833.GA54483@freebsd.org> To: Roman Divacky X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1486) Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:01:17 -0000 Roman, Den 11/09/2012 kl. 14.38 skrev Roman Divacky : >=20 > Upstream developers almost never use gcc4.2.1 as we do. So right now = the > ports maintainer must check whats wrong in the case the (upgraded) = port > doesnt compile with our in-tree gcc. >=20 >=20 > It can be trivial USE_GCC=3D4.something but the burden is exactly the = same > as with clang. So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with = USE_GCC=3D4.2 until they can actually build with clang? This could allow = the clang switch to proceed. Hopefully, waiting for GCC to compile just = to install some tiny port will be enough of a nuisance for people to = eventually fix the remaining ports. > By the nature of "developing the OS" we are forced to use compilers = and > toolchains. Recently I saw you submitting/committing patches with = .byte > sequences because our default assembler cant handle the instructions. > I saw jhb@ updating binutils to support invept/invvpid. >=20 > In my eyes, switching to clang by default lowers the = compiler/toolchain > maintenance burden we have. I agree. Switching away from abandonware to a compiler that is actively = maintained is a good thing. Regarding performance, I could do some benchmarking in my spare time, = but it does seem like an unforgiving task. Anyone posting any benchmark = numbers on these lists is going to be tarred, feathered, forced to print = out the full GCC 4.2.1 source code, read it out loud on the town square, = and spend the next month addressing concerns from people not willing to = do the work themselves :-) Erik=