From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 5 00:47:17 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B005F1065677 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 00:47:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9638FC16 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 00:47:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 11701 invoked by uid 399); 5 Jun 2010 00:47:16 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO foreign.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 5 Jun 2010 00:47:16 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4C099E93.1030103@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:47:15 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100330 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <20100529130240.GA99732@freebsd.org> <20100530135859.GI83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <508DA8CE-749A-46B4-AF0B-392DB08CBBCD@samsco.org> <20100531095617.GR83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <71B7DEC2-1ABE-4333-8C8E-02F899D2449B@samsco.org> <4C03DD4B.9020209@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20100601145322.52546745@duncan.reilly.home> <20100604001949.GC22064@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <20100604001949.GC22064@lonesome.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:47:17 -0000 100% agreement with Mark here. On 06/03/10 17:19, Mark Linimon wrote: > I'm just catching up with this thread, so apologies if this has already > been pointed out elsewhere. > > One of the things that has been discussed w/rt compilers for a while > (not just at the devsummit) was bending our minds around separating the > concept of "base system compiler" from "default ports compiler". In > -stable branches, we must and shall not do large compiler updates. But > ports probably need a more recent compiler (of whatever flavor) just to > keep as many of them building as possible. (As upstream authors switch > to newer compilers, their ports often don't build on whatever is in our > base). > > Despite my enthusiasm for the future of llvm, the reality is that even > in the medium-term there are so many ports with hardwired assumptions > that they are running on gcc (not to mention on linux on i386) that it > will never be possible to fix them all. The current paradigm is that > as ports stop building with both base gcc, unless they are switched to > depending on a newer gcc from ports, they'll be marked 'broken' and go > through the deprecation cycle. > > Further, I remind people that "compile" and "run" and "run equally as > well through all code-paths" are three completely separate levels of > effort, possibly having an order of magnitude more work between each. > We're looking at a multi-year process here, and not every single port is > going to survive. But again -- not all of them currently do, anwyays. > > mcl -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/