Compiling ports in a post-9.0-RELEASE world

Doug Barton dougb at
Wed Mar 16 16:11:36 UTC 2011

On 03/16/2011 02:39 AM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:19:48AM +0100, Erwin Lansing wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:20:40PM +0300, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>>> 13.03.2011, 01:00, "Doug Barton"<dougb at>:
>>>> Howdy,
>>>> As many of you are no doubt already aware, much work has been undertaken
>>>> to make clang the default compiler for the src tree starting with
>>>> 9.0-RELEASE. It is not 100% certain that this change will be made, but
>>>> it's looking more likely every day.
>>>> This raises an interesting question for how to deal with compiling ports
>>>> after 9.0 is released. So far there are 2 main ideas for how to deal
>>>> with this:
>>>> 1. Fix all ports to compile with both gcc 4.2 (for RELENG_[78]) and clang.
>>>> 2. Adopt an official "ports compiler," which would likely be one of the
>>>> gcc versions from the ports tree itself, and update all ports to work
>>>> with it.
>>> 3. Fix Clang to compile more ports
>> Note that these 3 are not mutually exclusive.  The clang developers have
>> been very responsive on earlier bugs we found and they are usually fixed
>> quickly, so I'm sure that if real bugs in clang are found they will be
>> happy to hear about them.  Fixing ports to work with both gcc and clang
>> should also be a good target to reach for, but given the amount of ports
>> this is unrealistic to be finished before 9.0 is released.
> What will happen to ports in non-clang arches (sparc64, ia64) after 9.0R?

This is a good reason that number 2 above is likely a necessary step 
regardless of what other work is done.



	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list