From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 4 16:27:47 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E1E1F41 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:27:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pd0-f172.google.com (mail-pd0-f172.google.com [209.85.192.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED99328F for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:27:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f172.google.com with SMTP id p10so3531208pdj.31 for ; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:27:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=oLrSV/jleu2j5l0ryQ2F5D2GU6c2aOLuEGGdtOi26bA=; b=fepFPc11tt9lm6k/ybjaxj0MiA9ITYuC8DnSfCmH6jOkGsJztHyzS9EaoeC4KtwKIa 3mlviQCV4GB5G3Vy3y4XIwGBm50DJYbFI1FtKcXHMaetgqGkEBHe0SF4qMcqzXN6anPY YJPmfVtAP1AoMcQEXUdr4vTq6UBnwvvjckjKSmBe25hXAlAgQAZjgk6T+fxj0jQNC71G e6a9Sjt+M9FC01MFsLLmPqizDlm91zh3QVcLaxBhzXfQuc/3kgo/LS3rrfoaqGm9Q2LO 7ctJDq0fWkHIoQa4IrEjYK/wDdhqmBvXFozu2ZUkqgB2VL4FOpxft53ZxPxnHbh2GNIe ITRA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQleN599hc3WVRN/fj6AaCajxljlCweh1qDelT5Uone48N1Fgotqlrgh8HNEAv6p3bi/T0Ea X-Received: by 10.66.164.70 with SMTP id yo6mr16013168pab.85.1396628866478; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lgmac-josharris.corp.netflix.com (dc1-prod.netflix.com. [69.53.236.251]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qh2sm42795028pab.13.2014.04.04.09.27.45 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Warner Losh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) Subject: Re: svn commit: r264042 - in head: include lib/libc/gen lib/libc/include lib/libc/stdlib From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <8E3BD3C1-A441-48C5-97BC-45EF67513096@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 10:27:44 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9E916835-C870-4F7E-B594-EB4671C404B2@gmail.com> References: <201404021607.s32G7mhw051355@svn.freebsd.org> <20140404115256.GA85137@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <8D6AF193-A5A3-4A28-A230-97A543395ACA@ixsystems.com> <2E0EC8CB-B3EE-4DB8-A33D-58FD2107F14D@FreeBSD.org> <6A02504F-5543-4F91-92F6-7B4FB9A34DC4@ixsystems.com> <152D73EE-DF9E-4757-B547-F1F22B12C824@FreeBSD.org> <8E3BD3C1-A441-48C5-97BC-45EF67513096@FreeBSD.org> To: David Chisnall X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin , src-committers@freebsd.org, Jordan Hubbard , svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 16:27:47 -0000 On Apr 4, 2014, at 8:03 AM, David Chisnall wrote: > On 4 Apr 2014, at 14:44, Jordan Hubbard wrote: >=20 >> Ah, OK. And I=92m guessing there=92s been no interest in = forward-porting the blocks support to 4.7? That=92s kind of=85 a = bummer. >=20 > I don't think so. Warner has been forward-porting some of the FreeBSD = binutils changes, but even Pedro (who did the blocks port to FreeBSD gcc = 4.2.1) doesn't want to touch gcc anymore. =20 As far as I can tell, all the binutils stuff is upstream. It=92s the gcc = hacks that we=92ve done that I=92m working on. >> I=92m guessing the great white hope for all the platforms is a slow = convergence on clang then? What is the compiler toolchain master plan? = If there=92s a wiki somewhere describing it, I=92d also be happy to just = go read that. >=20 > Not really. Converging on clang is nice, but even then it's good to = have (at least) a second working compiler for several reasons: >=20 > - As we discovered with gcc, having a single source for a core = component is usually not ideal, as they can change the rules suddenly >=20 > - If there's a bug in clang (and, given that it's getting on for a = million lines of C++ code now, the odds are good that there are always = going to be a few), it's helpful to have another compiler for testing. >=20 > - Periodic testing with another compiler stops us shipping code that = relies on non-conformant behaviour. The amount of effort that it's = required to get the Linux kernel to build with clang should be a warning = for us - we don't want to fall into the same trap. >=20 > That said, I think we're increasingly going to be using LLVM for = things that are beyond just simple AOT compilation, so platforms with no = LLVM back end are likely to be left behind. I image there will be a slow rollout of the LLVM features, where they = replace current features to make them faster, the non-clang platforms = get less optimal performance. For new features, the non-clang platforms = might get reduced functionality in that area. I doubt that we=92ll have = any core, mandatory feature requiring LLVM for some time, though that = day may come=85 I doubt it will be a sudden switch. In the mean time, things like gcc x86 kernel builds start to decay=85 = They are broken right now=85 Warner=