Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:11:21 -0400 From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@telenix.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: ed@80386.nl, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clang: now available from a SVN server near you! Message-ID: <4A353D49.1050202@telenix.org> In-Reply-To: <20090608.120552.756910862.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20090604093831.GE48776@hoeg.nl> <20090608.120552.756910862.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20090604093831.GE48776@hoeg.nl> > Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> writes: > : Good news everyone! > ... > : So far we've only done testing on amd64 and i386. A lot of ports are > : probably still broken. Caveat emptor. Beware of dog. Slippery when wet. > > "objects in mirror may be larger than they appear" > > Do you have size or run-time performance comparisons yet? I feel a bit like an idiot needing to ask this, but I downloaded the stuff on llvm/clang, but I don't know the name of the directories, and I need to ask some items. (Before someone kindly points this out, I've been running -current fairly regularly since 1.0, and I'm completely aware that running current is very nearly completely a "run at your own risk" thing. I have a pretty good track record and being able to fix things, and I accept this risk just like the earlier ones). So, I need the next very few questions to help me on my way: First is the complete set of llvm/clang code in that new src/cddl subdirectory? I looked really hard for directories named either clang or llvm, and since I didn't find anything, is there anything like a README that explains what's sitting where? I mean, stuff like what's in the currently available src/README, but in a little additional detail for the new llvm/clang stuff. This is likely stuff that others might be curious about also, those who didn't konw any more about llvm than I do. Is the rest of the stuff I downloaded, the rest of that tree, being kept up to date with the rest of the FreeBSD-current's HEAD? Or, is that being held for llvm testing? BTW, my insurance method here is to have a complete prebuilt -current tree (with gcc built and ready to be installed) sitting on the side, so if suddenly llvm won't operate, I only need to install from that other tree to get me a good gcc again. Not that I'm expecting any code problem, but I could cause myself some local problem, possibly, I want to protect myself from anything. I'm honestly mostly worried about the stiching up of the new llvm code with the rest of the tree, or if that needs something extra (beyond merely getting llvm working)? Thanks for letting me bother you about this.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A353D49.1050202>