From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 11 15:35:04 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52ECD106564A; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:35:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0773B8FC0C; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:35:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.5/8.14.5/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id q8BFZ2GE023608; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:35:02 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:35:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:35:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Konstantin Belousov In-Reply-To: <20120911122122.GJ37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> Message-ID: References: <20120910211207.GC64920@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20120911104518.GF37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911120649.GA52235@freebsd.org> <20120911122122.GJ37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org, Roman Divacky , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:35:04 -0000 On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote: >> >> We currently dont compile 4680 ports (out of 23857). Top 10 ports that prevent >> the most other ports from compiling together prevent 2222 ports from >> compilation. So if we fixed those 10 ports we could be at around 2500 ports >> not compiling. Thats quite far from your claim of forking 20k programs. > > Sorry, I cannot buy the argument. How many patches there are already > in the ports tree to cope with clang incompatibility with gcc ? You may > declare that all of them are application bugs, but it completely misses > the point. [ snip ] >> I believe majority of the broken ports is broken because their maintainer >> never saw them being broken with clang just because it's not the default >> compiler. Thus by making it the default majority of the problems would just >> go away. > > Can you, please, read what I wrote ? Fixing _ports_ to compile with > clang is plain wrong. Upstream developers use gcc almost always for > development and testing. Establishing another constant cost on the > porting work puts burden on the ports submitters, maintainers and even > ports users. This is a good point! -- DE