[TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to
areilly at bigpond.net.au
Tue Jun 1 04:53:45 UTC 2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:01:15 +0100
Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
> Is it really such a bad thing to have gcc as a build-dependency
> for various ported applications?
There are already ports that have gcc-4.4.4 as a dependency, and
a few that still require gcc-3.4.6.
[on my system, that's :
and ...hmm... maybe I've already de-installed whatever was
depending on 3.4.6...]
Anyway, I don't see this trend slowing down any time soon, so I
don't think that being able to compile all of ports is a
reasonable constraint on bringing clang into the tree.
I've changed my mind about bringing things into the tree since my
last post on the subject. Being in-tree helps a lot with the
ability to cross-build, which matters now that reasonably priced
"beasty" machines are so much faster than reasonably-priced
"puny" machines. Also, I've learned to love tmux...
Also, the ability to have NO_LLVM in make.conf should (just like
the other, similar switches) answer the rebuild-time issue.
Just a few cents from the peanut gallery.
FWIW I'm in favour, but I do understand Kostik's concern. I've
been bitten by my share of compiler bugs and hardware bugs.
Perhaps, even for a while after introduction, there should be a
rule like "don't report a bug unless you've reproduced
it on a system built with cc(=gcc)", just to keep those two issues
separate. Perhaps with a side order of: any bug that you find in
a clang-compiled system that goes away when re-built with gcc
should be reported to the clang folk...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the freebsd-current