Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 12:54:29 +0200 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD Message-ID: <AANLkTin-gJ5ehBsIB3c7VCqdivsiKf3kZdwXkod6Lgsf@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100531095617.GR83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2010/5/31 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>: > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:03:17AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: >> On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote: >> > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote: >> >> hi, >> >> >> >> ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we >> >> aim to import into HEAD in roughly a week. We would like the initial >> > It was promised that before the import, the public discussion on >> > the mailing list will happen. So far, nothing appeared on either >> > arch@ or current@ providing argumentation why should we accept this. >> >> Sounds like you're inviting the discussion right now. =C2=A0I'll start = =3D-) >> >> 1. I hate gcc with the burning heat of a million suns. It's not a >> tool, it's a political weapon wielded by the FSF and their acolytes. >> It's also a crummy piece of software that has been "good enough" for >> far too long. Its development model is a burden to work with and has >> been a major liability towards FreeBSD releases in the past. Its >> demise cannot happen soon enough. >> >> 2. Due to the political bent of the GPL3 and the FSF's insistence >> on shoving it down everyone's throats, FreeBSD is stuck with a >> dead-end version of gcc. This has already been a liability in terms >> of addressing bugs in gcc itself, and it will only get worse as >> technology moves forward and gcc stands still. >> >> 3. Clang/LLVM has an active development base and a clear future. It >> will move forward while gcc rots. There simply is no future left in >> gcc unless the FreeBSD project decides to embrace the GPL3, and that's >> a move that has already been heavily discussed, debated, and decided >> on. Anecdotally, I think that FreeBSD is benefiting from shunning the >> GPL3; it's made it an attractive option for companies looking for an >> unencumbered OS for their products. >> >> 4. While Clang is immature now, it will mature in the near future, >> and FreeBSD will benefit from that process. FreeBSD will get built-in >> access to upcoming technologies like GCD+Blocks and better code >> editors and development tools that gcc will never support. It'll break >> free of the development stranglehold that exists within gcc. Clang has >> shown good agility in adapting to the needs of FreeBSD and the legacy >> of gcc, thanks in large part to the efforts of people like Roman. Gcc >> has been nothing but drama and headache, even with the valiant efforts >> of people like Alexander Kabaev. >> >> 5. If all of this turns out to not be true and Clang/LLVM fails, >> FreeBSD has lost nothing and can remove it from the base system. Gcc >> remains where it is for now, at least until it's time for the "remove >> gcc discussion". >> >> The future is !gcc. Putting Clang+LLVM into a position where it can >> be easily embraced by FreeBSD users will greatly benefit the FreeBSD >> project. >> >> Scott >> > I do not object to a single point in your message. On the other hand, all > said could be labeled as distilled propaganda. > > My main concern is the usefulness of HEAD for routine bug-fixing process. > > The proposed merge makes it relatively easy for users to start compiling > the system with CLang. Our HEAD userbase is one of the most valuable > project asset to ensure the quality of the system. After the support for > easy compilation with clang is imported, some substantial portion of the > HEAD users definitely start experimenting with it. This immediately makes > the bug reports against HEAD almost useless, since level of demotivation > when looking at the bug is immense. When you do know that the issue can > be in the compiler, and not the OS, why looking ? > > Any bug analisys now shall start with exchange to verify which compiler > was used to build the reporter system, and ask to reproduce it with gcc. > [I am talking not only about gnats, but also mailing list questions, > private pleas for help etc]. > > My personal opinion is that pushing the import now at the present state > of clang makes a disservice to FreeBSD, and possible clang. Why not keep > the glue on the branch as it is ? Motivated testers willing to help > definitely can checkout from the branch. Import can happen when we are > satisfied with the quality of new compiler, instead of discontent about > old one. FWIW, I entirely agree with Kostik here. I really would like to see CLANG more integrated with FreeBSD only when there are 0 or similar (well-known, already analyzed, listed somewhere, etc.) bugs by the compiler rather than still being in the middle of a bug storm. Besides, the 'debugging problem' is pretty much real and nobody answered with a reasonable solution for it, and being honest, I don't see the people pushing for the import concerned about that at all. Are all the bug reports collected somewhere? What's the state of their resolution? There is a description somewhere of missing support and things still to be addressed? Thanks, Attilio --=20 Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTin-gJ5ehBsIB3c7VCqdivsiKf3kZdwXkod6Lgsf>