[TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD

[Kostik Belousov]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 06:55:17AM -0500, Astrodog wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Roman Divacky <rdivacky at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >> > people are already experimenting with clang installed from ports,
> >> > with gcc4.{3,4,5} from ports etc. by not importing clang we can
> >> > maybe delay this a little but it's coming anyway.
> >> I am pretty much fine and happy with people experimenting with clang
> >> or any other compilers from ports, custom built, whatever. This is very
> >> different from importing some compiler into base. See below about "signal".
> >
> > what I wanted to say is that we can get problem reports from people using
> > other compilers than our stock gcc even today.
> >
> >> > > Rather, I would consider the changes to ease the use of any external
> >> > > compiler, from ports or whatever, bent into shape and kept up to date
> >> > > with system progress very important, much less controversial and more
> >> > > useful. Then, addicts of any kool-aid-compiler can drink their potion
> >> > > without starting undesired relations. Unfortunately, this is not what
> >> > > happen.
> >> >
> >> > this is orthogonal to this. we as a project aim for delivering complete
> >> > operating system and we just need a system compiler. gcc4.2.1 just
> >> > cant serve us anymore, we need to do something now.
> >> Please describe why gcc in base cannot serve us anymore while served up
> >> to the minute I got your message.
> >
> > that was summarized in a beautiful way by Scott Long :)
> >
> 
> I don't think this is really a question of "Can gcc work in base right
> now?". Everyone knows it can, because that's what's actually being
> used at this very moment. At the same time, I don't think there's any
> real argument in saying that eventually FreeBSD will have to switch to
> either a new compiler, or a new version of gcc, with the GPLv3
> nightmare that could entail (Maybe that's a few years from now, I have
> no idea, but it's still going to need to happen, and its not as though
> switching will get easier with time.) From my perspective, there seem
> to be two real questions:
> 
> First, are the two compilers mutually exclusive? (I don't believe they are.)
> Second, is there a particular reason not to do this now, that will not
> exist later? (I'm not that current on what's going on.. but from what
> I can tell, my thought here is no, too.)
> 
> It's not as though this is irreversible. It's always possible to make
> the change, realize clang won't cut it just yet, and switch back a few
> hours/days/weeks/whatever later. Or, like I said earlier, if it's
> possible, run both.

See, there is no objection to the idea that clang can and may eventually
displace gcc in the base. This is not the subject of the thread.

The question is whether it is beneficial for FreeBSD to import
infrastructure to ease the clang-in-base spins up to the point where
user can set one variable before the build, right now.

From what it was claimed, even without the import, users can install
whatever compiler from ports, set CC and start the build. Essentially,
the import blesses the clang and its current state as ready for wide use.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20100531/aac28948/attachment.pgp