From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 4 00:52:37 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB541065687 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 00:52:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (lefty.soaustin.net [66.135.55.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EFB18FC1E for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 00:52:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id BDA218C08E; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 19:52:36 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 19:52:36 -0500 From: Mark Linimon To: Bruce Cran Message-ID: <20100604005236.GF22064@lonesome.com> References: <20100529130240.GA99732@freebsd.org> <20100530135859.GI83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <508DA8CE-749A-46B4-AF0B-392DB08CBBCD@samsco.org> <20100531095617.GR83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20100531132205.00000dd6@unknown> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100531132205.00000dd6@unknown> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Cc: Astrodog , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 00:52:37 -0000 On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:22:05PM +0100, Bruce Cran wrote: > From previous messages I don't think sparc64 is currently supported by > clang very well, if at all, so I think we'll still need gcc in the base > system for some time. I'll put on my "tier-2 package builder hat" for a moment. IMHO it helps FreeBSD's robustness to have our other architectures. In particular, fixing bugs in sparc64 may be helping us fix bugs that would affect arm/mips/powerpc, which are key for our embedded userbase. Perhaps I'm just invested in this from having spent time on sparc64 ... But a counter-argument is that if the two archs that llvm currently does not support well (sparc64 and ia64) start holding back major progress on amd64/i386, then we should give the most weight to what 90%+ of our userbase is on, and act accordingly. Hopefully that just means "keep gcc as the default for our tier-2 archs." I've been finding it intellectually interesting to work on these, but really, they shouldn't be allowed to hold up the parade. Final note: there is indeed active kernel work on sparc64, ia64, and powerpc, so things are not stalled. mcl