Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 01:01:33 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 220184] clang 4.0.0 segfaults on buildworld Message-ID: <bug-220184-29464-rVjuUOu9JV@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-220184-29464@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-220184-29464@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D220184 --- Comment #15 from Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> --- (In reply to Mark Millard from comment #14) My paragraph: "If this were a general problem the build servers would not be able to build the releases, ports, and such." was poorly chosen. I should have referred to just test builds that are based on head, stable/11, or the drafts of 11.1 . (I expect that there have been many.) These likely start with projects/clang*-import/ testing and continue with head, stable/11, and the 11.1 drafts. The official of releases and such likely are still based on an older context building the newer context. I do not know if they build and use a bootstrap clang 4 and then use it or not when the target is head, stable/11, or an 11.1 draft version of some kind. It could be that only the system compiler is built and installed but not used for anything relative to buildworld buildkernel activity. As I understand exp-runs were made for building ports that were based on clang 4. This might still be on-going. My own activity is incremental updates of head, so using clang 4 to build a bootstrap compiler that is clang 4 when needed. Then using the resultant clang 4 either way. (I ignore here experimenting with devel/*xtoolchain* or using gcc 4.2.1 where I have to [32-bit powerpc kernel that finishes booting correctly].) There is also likely activity of other people working based on clang 4, including buildworld, buildkernel, and building ports (ports that do not force some gcc or some other toolchain). I expect there is still enough activity based on clang 4 that my overall argument structure still holds: It would be good to try something that matches a well used, well established build configuration overall and see what the status is for that build configuration. I'll note that my activity is mostly based on system-clang, not devel/llvm40 clang. Although I have attempted devel/xtoolchain-llvm40 for buildworld and buildkernel when there were unusual failures like missing routines in linking. (So far system-clang and devel/xtoolchain-llvm40 have matched for such build issues. But I've rarely tried this.) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-220184-29464-rVjuUOu9JV>