Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:47:15 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD Message-ID: <4C099E93.1030103@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20100604001949.GC22064@lonesome.com> 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> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1005311456430.91047@fledge.watson.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1005311051440.12132@sea.ntplx.net> <4C03DD4B.9020209@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20100601145322.52546745@duncan.reilly.home> <20100604001949.GC22064@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C099E93.1030103>