svn commit: r364822 - in head/crypto/openssl/crypto: aes/asm bn/asm chacha/asm ec/asm modes/asm poly1305/asm sha/asm

[Jung-uk Kim]

On 20. 8. 26., Jessica Clarke wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2020, at 19:33, Dimitry Andric <dim at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 26 Aug 2020, at 19:13, Ian Lepore <ian at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 19:04 +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>>>> On 8/26/20, Jung-uk Kim <jkim at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>>> Author: jkim
>>>>> Date: Wed Aug 26 16:55:28 2020
>>>>> New Revision: 364822
>>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/364822
>>>>>
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> Fix Clang version detection.
>>>>>
>>>>> We prepend "FreeBSD" to Clang version string.  This broke
>>>>> compiler test
>>>>> for
>>>>> AVX instruction support.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What about other software checking in similar fashion? imo the right
>>>> fix is to stop mucking with the way clang reports itself
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe it would be better to not modify the start of the string.
>>> Instead of
>>>
>>> FreeBSD clang version 9.0.1 (git at github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git
>>> c1a0a213378a458fbea1a5c77b315c7dce08fd05) (based on LLVM 9.0.1)
>>>
>>> maybe
>>>
>>> clang version 9.0.1 for FreeBSD (git at github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git
>>> c1a0a213378a458fbea1a5c77b315c7dce08fd05) (based on LLVM 9.0.1)
>>
>> We have been doing this since, well, forever. And this way actually
>> originates from upstream, we only define the CLANG_VENDOR macro. I see
>> no reason to change this after all those years.
>>
>> A better question is, why these perl scripts "suddenly" started failing?
>> Or have they also failed since forever, and it was only noticed now?
> 
> Ah, digging deeper it gets more interesting. All those scripts check
> for "based on LLVM X.Y", a suffix printed for vendor builds. However,
> that was dropped in https://reviews.llvm.org/D69925 as it's redundant,
> thereby breaking this detection. So it's fallout from LLVM 10.

Yes, that's correct.

BTW, they also changed "-dumpversion" format from Clang 9.

% clang80 -dumpversion
4.2.1
% clang90 -dumpversion
9.0.1

Since some do not check whether you are using Clang or GCC, some scripts
may think you are using GCC 9 or newer.

> Also the scripts aren't failing in a sense, they just don't know what
> compiler is in use so they fall back on not enabling AVX.

Also, correct.

Jung-uk Kim