Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 16:34:43 +0200 From: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> To: Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, gerald@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [Patch] Proposal: USE_GNU89 switch Message-ID: <20090530143443.GT48776@hoeg.nl> In-Reply-To: <4A2142E1.7000607@FreeBSD.org> References: <20090529123633.GM48776@hoeg.nl> <20090530140800.GR48776@hoeg.nl> <4A213F84.1000704@FreeBSD.org> <20090530142152.GS48776@hoeg.nl> <4A2142E1.7000607@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--XG0jWBK27HhJN4nS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > As for LLVM, probably it won't work out for the whole ports =20 > tree. I don't know what's the portmgr opinion on this, if we start to =20 > use LLVM in Ports Collection, we should reconsider the knob, though. LLVM/Clang support is trivial. Erwin Lansing fired up an experimental ports build for us and the numbers are *very* promising. There are still some issues with the compiler itself, but so far it seems the only architectural change to the tree that needs to be made, is a hint to fall back to C89. This is not just about LLVM/Clang support. If the GCC folks ever decide to switch to C99 by default, we'll have exactly the same issue. --=20 Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> WWW: http://80386.nl/ --XG0jWBK27HhJN4nS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkohRAMACgkQ52SDGA2eCwUobgCfclM+VwvV3K96CG1QkgWfZgMC iCMAn0ZPA8RO5eayjyQSVAaRoqU8b5CI =hhgK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XG0jWBK27HhJN4nS--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090530143443.GT48776>