svn commit: r216977 - in head/libexec/rtld-elf: amd64 i386

John Baldwin jhb at
Wed Jan 5 20:16:46 UTC 2011

On Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:59:20 pm Doug Barton wrote:
> On 01/05/2011 10:59, Alexander Best wrote:
> > judging from the discussion going on right now it seems those flags will be
> > grouped together to form a new variable. so things will probably change shortly
> > and fixing the order is probably not necessary.
> Much better to fix the problem properly now than to rely on future work 
> that may or may not happen. I realize that you alluded to this later in 
> your message, but I think as a general principle this is worth reinforcing.
> > some people have proposed hacking into clang which i personally think is a very
> > bad idea. why not contact the clang developers? they might like the idea of a
> > switch disabling all advanced extensions for every architecture?
> I agree with this. We have a very awkward situation right now with lots 
> of local hacks in our version of gcc that in an ideal world we would not 
> replicate with clang; particularly considering the much lower barrier to 
> entry when it comes to contributing things back.

My suggestion was that we ask clang to add a '-mno-whatever' and hopefully we
could convince gcc to follow suit.  clang developers seem to be fairly
receptive, so I was hoping one of our clang liaisons could suggest it. :)

John Baldwin

More information about the svn-src-head mailing list