From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 3 20:00:16 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7CED27; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:00:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from ainaz.pair.com (ainaz.pair.com [209.68.2.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C1CE6EE; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:00:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.131] (vie-188-118-252-015.dsl.sil.at [188.118.252.15]) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B1EF3F410; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 15:00:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:00:08 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Konstantin Belousov Subject: Re: [toolchain] Removing default build of gcc In-Reply-To: <20130126152427.GD2522@kib.kiev.ua> Message-ID: References: <74D8E686-3679-46F2-8A08-4CF5DFC020CA@FreeBSD.org> <20130125113122.GN2522@kib.kiev.ua> <20130125195941.GW2522@kib.kiev.ua> <5102ECBF.4060500@FreeBSD.org> <20130126085316.GA9021@lonesome.com> <20130126152427.GD2522@kib.kiev.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Pedro Giffuni , freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 20:00:16 -0000 On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > Ports should use port-provided compiler, and be untangled from the base > toolchain. I believe that forcing ports committers to port 20K+ packages > to clang is a waste of the FreeBSD resources and is is destined to fail > despite the efforts. I agree that using a ports-provided compiler sounds like a good idea. (I am not sure that porting everything to clang will fail, though.) Anyway, I'll do what I can to support flexibility on the ports side, and with the patch below we should now able to support a world without GCC in the base. Please let me know if there is more you need or problems still in place. Gerald Author: gerald Date: Sun Mar 3 03:21:29 2013 New Revision: 313323 URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/313323 Log: Do not just rely on the version number of FreeBSD in deciding whether a certain version of GCC is in the base, but also check the existence of /usr/bin/gcc. This unbreaks systems where GCC is not built as part of the world, and instead relies on versions of GCC in the Ports Collection there. PR: 175252 Submitted by: Yamaya Takashi Modified: head/Mk/bsd.gcc.mk Modified: head/Mk/bsd.gcc.mk ============================================================================== --- head/Mk/bsd.gcc.mk Sun Mar 3 02:51:25 2013 (r313322) +++ head/Mk/bsd.gcc.mk Sun Mar 3 03:21:29 2013 (r313323) @@ -150,7 +150,9 @@ IGNORE= Unknown version of GCC specified _GCC_FOUND${v}= port . endif . if ${OSVERSION} >= ${_GCCVERSION_${v}_L} && ${OSVERSION} < ${_GCCVERSION_${v}_R} +. if exists(/usr/bin/gcc) _GCC_FOUND${v}:= base +. endif . endif .endfor @@ -194,7 +196,7 @@ _USE_GCC:= ${GCC_DEFAULT_VERSION} # dependencies, CC, CXX, CPP, and flags. .for v in ${GCCVERSIONS} . if ${_USE_GCC} == ${_GCCVERSION_${v}_V} -. if ${OSVERSION} < ${_GCCVERSION_${v}_L} || ${OSVERSION} > ${_GCCVERSION_${v}_R} +. if ${OSVERSION} < ${_GCCVERSION_${v}_L} || ${OSVERSION} > ${_GCCVERSION_${v}_R} || !exists(/usr/bin/gcc) V:= ${_GCCVERSION_${v}_V:S/.//} _GCC_PORT_DEPENDS:= gcc${V} . if ${_USE_GCC} == ${GCC_DEFAULT_VERSION} @@ -219,7 +221,7 @@ FFLAGS+= -Wl,-rpath=${_GCC_RUNTIME} # ever telling us; to be fixed. _GCC_BUILD_DEPENDS:= ${_GCC_PORT_DEPENDS} . endif # ${_USE_GCC} != 3.4 -. else # ${OSVERSION} < ${_GCCVERSION_${v}_L} || ${OSVERSION} > ${_GCCVERSION_${v}_R} +. else # Use GCC in base. CC:= gcc CXX:= g++ . if exists(/usr/bin/gcpp) @@ -227,7 +229,7 @@ CPP:= gcpp . else CPP:= cpp . endif -. endif # ${OSVERSION} < ${_GCCVERSION_${v}_L} || ${OSVERSION} > ${_GCCVERSION_${v}_R} +. endif # Use GCC in base. . endif # ${_USE_GCC} == ${_GCCVERSION_${v}_V} .endfor .undef V From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 4 11:06:51 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AA23F39 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:06:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64560E6C for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:06:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r24B6pD5038941 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:06:51 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r24B6ock038939 for freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:06:50 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:06:50 GMT Message-Id: <201303041106.r24B6ock038939@freefall.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: gnats set sender to owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org using -f From: FreeBSD bugmaster To: freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: Current problem reports assigned to freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:06:51 -0000 Note: to view an individual PR, use: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number). The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users. These represent problem reports covering all versions including experimental development code and obsolete releases. S Tracker Resp. Description -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o bin/175930 toolchain [headers] clang does not define __STDC_ISO_10646__, de 1 problem total. From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 7 17:26:19 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02AC3D09 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:26:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tijl@coosemans.org) Received: from mailrelay005.isp.belgacom.be (mailrelay005.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.6.171]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DB8873 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:26:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Belgacom-Dynamic: yes X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIIAODLOFFbs4Km/2dsb2JhbABDhUHAaBdXHYMJIj0WGAMCAQIBJzEIAQGIE5onoHOPKYMqA48rgSeWaoMK Received: from 166.130-179-91.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (HELO kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org) ([91.179.130.166]) by relay.skynet.be with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2013 18:25:09 +0100 Received: from kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org [127.0.0.1]) by kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r27HP84e028420 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:25:08 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from tijl@coosemans.org) Message-ID: <5138CD6B.2050309@coosemans.org> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:24:59 +0100 From: Tijl Coosemans User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130223 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: c89 broken on head? X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----enig2PWRFBALQLKWKRNCUJRDU" X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:26:19 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) ------enig2PWRFBALQLKWKRNCUJRDU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Whatever the command line arguments, running c89 almost always results in= the following output. Anyone else seeing this? c89: illegal option -- 1 usage: c89 [-cEgOs] [-D name[=3Dvalue]] ... [-I directory] ... [-L direct= ory] ... [-o outfile] [-U name] ... operand ... where operand is one or more of file.c, file.o, file.a or -llibrary Also, I seem to remember a discussion about making -std=3Dgnu89 the defau= lt for clang when run as "cc", but nothing seems to have changed. Could this= be picked up again, because there are in fact subtle semantic differences= between gnu89 inline and c99 inline that old code may rely on. ------enig2PWRFBALQLKWKRNCUJRDU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iF4EAREIAAYFAlE4zXQACgkQfoCS2CCgtisdpwD7BGj+wZEY5VOhLwLIcmeR5KK9 fb1rPs2u4goUTC2PJOAA/1x+dI5gdJcmVOgro9Vd6BOinRRkyzuZybu8rX4ZhtmI =T5Os -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2PWRFBALQLKWKRNCUJRDU-- From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 7 19:28:15 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F46E97D for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:28:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from tensor.andric.com (tensor.andric.com [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:1:2d0:b7ff:fea0:8c26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC210E62 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:28:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:204:4bff:fe01:de8a] (spaceball.andric.com [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:204:4bff:fe01:de8a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tensor.andric.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4E7825C43; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 20:28:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5138EA4C.1060001@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 20:28:12 +0100 From: Dimitry Andric Organization: The FreeBSD Project User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:19.0) Gecko/20130117 Thunderbird/19.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tijl Coosemans , toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: c89 broken on head? References: <5138CD6B.2050309@coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <5138CD6B.2050309@coosemans.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:28:15 -0000 On 2013-03-07 18:24, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > Whatever the command line arguments, running c89 almost always results in > the following output. Anyone else seeing this? > > c89: illegal option -- 1 > usage: c89 [-cEgOs] [-D name[=value]] ... [-I directory] ... [-L directory] ... > [-o outfile] [-U name] ... operand ... > > where operand is one or more of file.c, file.o, file.a > or -llibrary Does anybody ever actually use this tool, really? :-) In any case, what happens is that /usr/bin/c89 builds up an argv[] array, prepending the flags "-std=iso9899:199409" and "-pedantic" to the other arguments, but it sets argv[0] to "/usr/bin/c89" too. If /usr/bin/cc is gcc, this causes no problems, since gcc always runs /usr/libexec/cc1 for its first stage compilation process. It basically ignores the value of argv[0]. When /usr/bin/cc is clang, however, it uses argv[0] to run its first stage compilation, with -cc1 as the first argument. So this will run /usr/bin/c89 yet again, and that complains about the unrecognized '1' option. It can be solved very easily, by letting c89.c set argv[0] to /usr/bin/cc instead, similar to c99.c, as with this diff: Index: usr.bin/c89/c89.c =================================================================== --- usr.bin/c89/c89.c (revision 247448) +++ usr.bin/c89/c89.c (working copy) @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ main(int argc, char **argv) Argv.a = malloc((argc + 1 + N_ARGS_PREPENDED) * sizeof *Argv.a); if (Argv.a == NULL) err(1, "malloc"); - Argv.a[Argc++] = argv[0]; + Argv.a[Argc++] = CC; for (j = 0; j < N_ARGS_PREPENDED; ++j) Argv.a[Argc++] = args_prepended[j]; while ((i = getopt(argc, argv, "cD:EgI:l:L:o:OsU:")) != -1) { > Also, I seem to remember a discussion about making -std=gnu89 the default > for clang when run as "cc", but nothing seems to have changed. Could this > be picked up again, because there are in fact subtle semantic differences > between gnu89 inline and c99 inline that old code may rely on. Why on earth would you want gnu89 still as the default in 2013? I would rather have it default to C11, but the support for this isn't complete yet... :-) From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 7 19:31:30 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59AA1C0F; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:31:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org) Received: from theravensnest.org (theraven.freebsd.your.org [216.14.102.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D1EBE86; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:31:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (cpc10-cmbg15-2-0-cust123.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com [86.30.246.124]) (authenticated bits=0) by theravensnest.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r27JVNvn048781 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:31:24 GMT (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: c89 broken on head? From: David Chisnall In-Reply-To: <5138EA4C.1060001@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:31:18 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6C9CF544-155D-4A91-A0C0-0DA1E5DB911A@FreeBSD.org> References: <5138CD6B.2050309@coosemans.org> <5138EA4C.1060001@FreeBSD.org> To: Dimitry Andric X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: toolchain@FreeBSD.org, Tijl Coosemans X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:31:30 -0000 On 7 Mar 2013, at 19:28, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> Also, I seem to remember a discussion about making -std=3Dgnu89 the = default >> for clang when run as "cc", but nothing seems to have changed. Could = this >> be picked up again, because there are in fact subtle semantic = differences >> between gnu89 inline and c99 inline that old code may rely on. cc was deprecated in POSIX1997. I would be more in favour of removing = it entirely than of making it default to anything other than C11. I do have a patch for clang that makes it select a more sensible default = dialect when invoked as gcc, c89, c99, or c11. I'll try to push this = upstream soon. David From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 7 20:23:26 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764AF317 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 20:23:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tijl@coosemans.org) Received: from mailrelay010.isp.belgacom.be (mailrelay010.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.6.177]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14374101 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 20:23:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Belgacom-Dynamic: yes X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAGD1OFFbs4Km/2dsb2JhbABEwXOCYYFjF3SCLAEBBVYeBBELGAkWDwkDAgECASceEwgBAYgTu1GPExaDKgOPK4EnlmqDCg Received: from 166.130-179-91.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (HELO kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org) ([91.179.130.166]) by relay.skynet.be with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2013 21:22:15 +0100 Received: from kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org [127.0.0.1]) by kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r27KMFGA001406 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:22:15 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from tijl@coosemans.org) Message-ID: <5138F6EF.6020203@coosemans.org> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:22:07 +0100 From: Tijl Coosemans User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130223 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: c89 broken on head? References: <5138CD6B.2050309@coosemans.org> <5138EA4C.1060001@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <5138EA4C.1060001@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----enig2TGKBMCTGFIAHOJLMTHRL" X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 20:23:26 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) ------enig2TGKBMCTGFIAHOJLMTHRL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2013-03-07 20:28, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2013-03-07 18:24, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >> Whatever the command line arguments, running c89 almost always results= in >> the following output. Anyone else seeing this? >> >> c89: illegal option -- 1 >> usage: c89 [-cEgOs] [-D name[=3Dvalue]] ... [-I directory] ... [-L dir= ectory] ... >> [-o outfile] [-U name] ... operand ... >> >> where operand is one or more of file.c, file.o, file.a >> or -llibrary >=20 > Does anybody ever actually use this tool, really? :-) >=20 > In any case, what happens is that /usr/bin/c89 builds up an argv[] > array, prepending the flags "-std=3Diso9899:199409" and "-pedantic" to = the > other arguments, but it sets argv[0] to "/usr/bin/c89" too. >=20 > If /usr/bin/cc is gcc, this causes no problems, since gcc always runs > /usr/libexec/cc1 for its first stage compilation process. It basically= > ignores the value of argv[0]. >=20 > When /usr/bin/cc is clang, however, it uses argv[0] to run its first > stage compilation, with -cc1 as the first argument. So this will run > /usr/bin/c89 yet again, and that complains about the unrecognized '1' > option. >=20 > It can be solved very easily, by letting c89.c set argv[0] to > /usr/bin/cc instead, similar to c99.c, as with this diff: >=20 > Index: usr.bin/c89/c89.c > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > --- usr.bin/c89/c89.c (revision 247448) > +++ usr.bin/c89/c89.c (working copy) > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ main(int argc, char **argv) > Argv.a =3D malloc((argc + 1 + N_ARGS_PREPENDED) * sizeof *Argv.a);= > if (Argv.a =3D=3D NULL) > err(1, "malloc"); > - Argv.a[Argc++] =3D argv[0]; > + Argv.a[Argc++] =3D CC; > for (j =3D 0; j < N_ARGS_PREPENDED; ++j) > Argv.a[Argc++] =3D args_prepended[j]; > while ((i =3D getopt(argc, argv, "cD:EgI:l:L:o:OsU:")) !=3D -1) { >=20 >=20 >> Also, I seem to remember a discussion about making -std=3Dgnu89 the de= fault >> for clang when run as "cc", but nothing seems to have changed. Could t= his >> be picked up again, because there are in fact subtle semantic differen= ces >> between gnu89 inline and c99 inline that old code may rely on. >=20 > Why on earth would you want gnu89 still as the default in 2013? I woul= d > rather have it default to C11, but the support for this isn't complete > yet... :-) Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't possibly= be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code can be expected to add -std=3Dc11. ------enig2TGKBMCTGFIAHOJLMTHRL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iF4EAREIAAYFAlE49vcACgkQfoCS2CCgtiv6BwD/UeoFDPiET3Jbjj9oiF77cCFU cMAZkEeAUT7/7AOuKqAA/2By4GxG/a9f83F0KC9bRjzvcQDA7qspKkQ0nNxu8uKP =WOqz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2TGKBMCTGFIAHOJLMTHRL-- From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 7 21:28:37 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E9E829 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:28:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from tensor.andric.com (tensor.andric.com [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:1:2d0:b7ff:fea0:8c26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B427B3CA for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:28:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:204:4bff:fe01:de8a] (spaceball.andric.com [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:204:4bff:fe01:de8a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tensor.andric.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 189BC5C44; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 22:28:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <51390682.3020703@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 22:28:34 +0100 From: Dimitry Andric Organization: The FreeBSD Project User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:19.0) Gecko/20130117 Thunderbird/19.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tijl Coosemans , freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: c89 broken on head? References: <5138CD6B.2050309@coosemans.org> <5138EA4C.1060001@FreeBSD.org> <5138F6EF.6020203@coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <5138F6EF.6020203@coosemans.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:28:37 -0000 On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote: ... > Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't possibly > be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code can be > expected to add -std=c11. I am not sure I buy that argument; if it were so, we should default to K&R C instead, since "old code" (for some arbitrary definition of "old") could never have been expected to know about gcc defaulting to gnu89. From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 7 21:36:27 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF5EFAC for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:36:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-oa0-f52.google.com (mail-oa0-f52.google.com [209.85.219.52]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786EF5F3 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:36:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id k14so1237449oag.11 for ; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:36:21 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=FhM9qh+RSnwVjhsQ9i7MjKymJ4pCOhZYIlQgg4itPCY=; b=CZIlG7FBWvCuKA33q9lml6s2GFNl016e2xlr2Be18rmYe55o7fzBLW9wDB1B7E8pS3 V0912O+WwjBrbw9ri0CjHg7S+Pkr+CWP7S4s/H2VwHCcblB8he91A2/4OXD0yvriXFRj lFkbROIk+jrApQ4ta8mM834tOZxOUrqgO1iu+zT60H1KtFvPjhl1+d5/goB7wuq+6LwJ Y7UoL3Ki4B3GTL/u0XcdghFXiB8w94LDiPktOfi6cu+CPxZwfTOmE7s3+N5+h2ByuYGm +agpvYQwuv8NpylPgW/JEtJJjsBAcu6X97lLN/Zyb0HXkCKFEi//usLf3b3epwxujCyK srsA== X-Received: by 10.60.32.134 with SMTP id j6mr27702010oei.15.1362692181604; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:36:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkey-bot.int.fusionio.com ([209.117.142.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm2876699obj.7.2013.03.07.13.36.18 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:36:20 -0800 (PST) Sender: Warner Losh Subject: Re: c89 broken on head? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <51390682.3020703@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:36:16 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <48120A0D-8A96-4D62-9C17-AE40E1DEF026@bsdimp.com> References: <5138CD6B.2050309@coosemans.org> <5138EA4C.1060001@FreeBSD.org> <5138F6EF.6020203@coosemans.org> <51390682.3020703@FreeBSD.org> To: Dimitry Andric X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmChgzGupXfCSlkbXjEkSmyVn44HFEEi8HgFG6Uq/ycmr3v5cGLHIYswklz6HXA0C0fAUn/ Cc: Tijl Coosemans , freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:36:27 -0000 On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > ... >> Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't possibly >> be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code can be >> expected to add -std=c11. > > I am not sure I buy that argument; if it were so, we should default to > K&R C instead, since "old code" (for some arbitrary definition of "old") > could never have been expected to know about gcc defaulting to gnu89. -std=c11 is defintely too new, but maybe c89 is too old. I thought the c89 program actually was mandated by POSIX, no? Warner From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 7 23:04:45 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF26359 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 23:04:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tijl@coosemans.org) Received: from mailrelay003.isp.belgacom.be (mailrelay003.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.6.53]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2479399A for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 23:04:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Belgacom-Dynamic: yes X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFACYcOVFbs4Km/2dsb2JhbABDxFeBYxd0giwBAQVWIhELGAkWDwkDAgECASceEwgBAYgTCLtDjxMWgyoDjyuBJ4cXj1ODCg Received: from 166.130-179-91.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (HELO kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org) ([91.179.130.166]) by relay.skynet.be with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2013 00:03:35 +0100 Received: from kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org [127.0.0.1]) by kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r27N3YZw002308 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 00:03:35 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from tijl@coosemans.org) Message-ID: <51391CC1.5050200@coosemans.org> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 00:03:29 +0100 From: Tijl Coosemans User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130223 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: c89 broken on head? References: <5138CD6B.2050309@coosemans.org> <5138EA4C.1060001@FreeBSD.org> <5138F6EF.6020203@coosemans.org> <51390682.3020703@FreeBSD.org> <48120A0D-8A96-4D62-9C17-AE40E1DEF026@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <48120A0D-8A96-4D62-9C17-AE40E1DEF026@bsdimp.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----enig2EAKHNPRBSMOOCFBNMNUT" X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 23:04:45 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) ------enig2EAKHNPRBSMOOCFBNMNUT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2013-03-07 22:36, Warner Losh wrote: > On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >> ... >>> Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't poss= ibly >>> be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code can= be >>> expected to add -std=3Dc11. >> >> I am not sure I buy that argument; if it were so, we should default to= >> K&R C instead, since "old code" (for some arbitrary definition of "old= ") >> could never have been expected to know about gcc defaulting to gnu89. My argument was to be practical, i.e. don't change what doesn't have to change. > -std=3Dc11 is defintely too new, but maybe c89 is too old. >=20 > I thought the c89 program actually was mandated by POSIX, no? Both were part of POSIX. c89 was a strict ISO c89 compiler, while cc was c89, but could additionally accept "an unspecified dialect of the C language". http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xcu/cc.html So, if practicality isn't a good enough argument, maybe POSIX compliance is? ------enig2EAKHNPRBSMOOCFBNMNUT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iF4EAREIAAYFAlE5HMYACgkQfoCS2CCgtiua2wD/ebw/V5GCfriV7yeNOl8J0m+N pMyN4zAfZfeYvH48DXMA/jK5cI7iyXDpNIUU0bnpOJhcKOGIrZtTlnAKHTIsiKcm =TEYo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2EAKHNPRBSMOOCFBNMNUT-- From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 8 03:08:36 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0455748 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 03:08:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@eitanadler.com) Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com (mail-wg0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F5835A for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 03:08:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id 12so1993835wgh.19 for ; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:08:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eitanadler.com; s=0xdeadbeef; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=KYu1TvZSmKHwqzHqxx/Qodbim2ad4l8P7W0k3JVKBIA=; b=Yq1agItcLuhf+yjgAN41kpM+DtscirExhI2jtKrkqQgRKIJAvMjNtS+R5vv7SWhS44 GhHTTHZ8XvksD6WkwMOq1XyJcr08YN0GzjMK/4rgCv48EAYl694nEVjK6YqzzcrAb8zs Hy4Tzxocj2cjMd1ZhzhD3X7E9dBsf2PJXLt6U= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=KYu1TvZSmKHwqzHqxx/Qodbim2ad4l8P7W0k3JVKBIA=; b=mJDM9LZwsrxTpOhXPr+mD64Mswk4wwdM1bx/9IjAK399EOHpxNcbhwX2g+WWQAROks Tz9Ep1ZveLbjt/tIUBEIhrKnKfMd+X/herdqla8k91AUYhCdCk2ARg9NyoPVkcUlq2vy SCyJ7O2l2npuUgJmr7dYBbDB3dJ1PIgOBl9AoLaEgWr16BliBjfkpu9GneC1Lu6sqHhP y68YK/Isbzt+ZXTL7gsnLk4ZYbDrpR0tdZcisdZZGauwIT5jpWnzfI4ApUCVnwdnX0s9 TEmhthrtXXYmDlix2GfDO2Ewy9qk8yKyjpO9oJgbRu0k5KRcR81bIhOKkvoaQiLdToJi eAbw== X-Received: by 10.180.81.164 with SMTP id b4mr903040wiy.34.1362712109340; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:08:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.179.194 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:07:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <51391CC1.5050200@coosemans.org> References: <5138CD6B.2050309@coosemans.org> <5138EA4C.1060001@FreeBSD.org> <5138F6EF.6020203@coosemans.org> <51390682.3020703@FreeBSD.org> <48120A0D-8A96-4D62-9C17-AE40E1DEF026@bsdimp.com> <51391CC1.5050200@coosemans.org> From: Eitan Adler Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 22:07:59 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: c89 broken on head? To: Tijl Coosemans Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmrmsdtsrNndBFS6ta/eR8AT53b6GYQf+BhkYalrT1nBrMz8ZhEr9dUT9ih3P8G3xGSvvah Cc: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 03:08:36 -0000 On 7 March 2013 18:03, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On 2013-03-07 22:36, Warner Losh wrote: >> On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: >>> On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >>> ... >>>> Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't possibly >>>> be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code can be >>>> expected to add -std=c11. >>> >>> I am not sure I buy that argument; if it were so, we should default to >>> K&R C instead, since "old code" (for some arbitrary definition of "old") >>> could never have been expected to know about gcc defaulting to gnu89. > > My argument was to be practical, i.e. don't change what doesn't have to > change. > >> -std=c11 is defintely too new, but maybe c89 is too old. >> >> I thought the c89 program actually was mandated by POSIX, no? > > Both were part of POSIX. c89 was a strict ISO c89 compiler, while cc was > c89, but could additionally accept "an unspecified dialect of the C > language". http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xcu/cc.html > > So, if practicality isn't a good enough argument, maybe POSIX compliance > is? cc is marked as "LEGACY" which is described as optional ("need not be provided"). However, I would not be surprised if a non-zero number of ports depend on cc existing. If we are to remove it or change it, I would like to see that preceded by an exp-run. -- Eitan Adler From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 8 17:40:11 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5FB6ABF for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:40:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-oa0-f45.google.com (mail-oa0-f45.google.com [209.85.219.45]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782DF881 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:40:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id o6so2327650oag.32 for ; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:40:10 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=bfdkgL5ARPZ6QkRsT9Xfp6pB9rCwD/z0mHXo3+0481c=; b=JNHINCEMnGu2z5bCPj8ji231k0/lNCiSY5ZyMs0knMdw5XDyAym0rziJuCf8AG5Oky Nyyt8mL0H6HXn/FFSVlovtv0uxsv5bIPpAAoi598R+zVjNPbtc4+75iY+0aShrHra9CT Sbz2LxYzFhNqn/4pLgqkf0x7jBgT8lV/LnWAF0egxY+rfN+7RZ/X6pnbB28oiSYzX3q2 7zqM9tQZyVVOg4sKszzijAnYwJOUbreHc9Nm43l6RFf7VuEoxv+Dh9NPXr8IesOZr0iB bRhIGPQew8a4WVwSabVnZapxA4+Er6gECvlCIrWqIBm4B/NRvorAlTzcL8UpvdMOBT3t P8cw== X-Received: by 10.182.88.103 with SMTP id bf7mr2394900obb.7.1362764410543; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:40:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from fusionlt2834a.int.fusionio.com ([209.117.142.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a3sm6569061oee.8.2013.03.08.09.40.08 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:40:09 -0800 (PST) Sender: Warner Losh Subject: Re: c89 broken on head? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 10:40:07 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <717866F5-8CF6-4E2F-A1C4-BFC894D4D680@bsdimp.com> References: <5138CD6B.2050309@coosemans.org> <5138EA4C.1060001@FreeBSD.org> <5138F6EF.6020203@coosemans.org> <51390682.3020703@FreeBSD.org> <48120A0D-8A96-4D62-9C17-AE40E1DEF026@bsdimp.com> <51391CC1.5050200@coosemans.org> To: Eitan Adler X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmUxfDTAAx0cCo6uBPMaFTQ78oiUROpTLDv9xII5drTaCJcBOSTahIW0jx0zDDlzCxMDSX0 Cc: Tijl Coosemans , freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:40:12 -0000 On Mar 7, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 7 March 2013 18:03, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >> On 2013-03-07 22:36, Warner Losh wrote: >>> On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: >>>> On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't = possibly >>>>> be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code = can be >>>>> expected to add -std=3Dc11. >>>>=20 >>>> I am not sure I buy that argument; if it were so, we should default = to >>>> K&R C instead, since "old code" (for some arbitrary definition of = "old") >>>> could never have been expected to know about gcc defaulting to = gnu89. >>=20 >> My argument was to be practical, i.e. don't change what doesn't have = to >> change. >>=20 >>> -std=3Dc11 is defintely too new, but maybe c89 is too old. >>>=20 >>> I thought the c89 program actually was mandated by POSIX, no? >>=20 >> Both were part of POSIX. c89 was a strict ISO c89 compiler, while cc = was >> c89, but could additionally accept "an unspecified dialect of the C >> language". http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xcu/cc.html >>=20 >> So, if practicality isn't a good enough argument, maybe POSIX = compliance >> is? >=20 > cc is marked as "LEGACY" which is described as optional ("need not be > provided"). > However, I would not be surprised if a non-zero number of ports depend > on cc existing. >=20 > If we are to remove it or change it, I would like to see that preceded > by an exp-run. Removing cc is an exceedingly stupid idea. I think it should be preceded = by the heat death of the universe. It will cause nothing but gratuitous = pain and suffering for our users and gain us absolutely nothing in = return. Do not even think about removing 'cc,' let alone trying to do an = exp-run. The idea is a non-starter and you'd be wasting your time. Warner= From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 8 17:48:23 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 050E2C25 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:48:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@eitanadler.com) Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B06903 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:48:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id h1so2338142oag.31 for ; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:48:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eitanadler.com; s=0xdeadbeef; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mYto2K95shsw1LHaydntTqFmslWTuuqKBHw8EcacfS0=; b=OlSOGYpx8ZBZtmaAQSVT/Bc56hCP7wt8xyf816nqz09vkRWy8Q9devFvKuZyOM/Jam Pys4+dcL9E5J1uhGPVEdqiSTB7zMO1J+KR+jG/X6JY2AUbgGtniQvVfLj2Lzte8qDlV5 ci24Eo/yBkxCGVivfOmu2zuKaVblkAZVY6YMk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=mYto2K95shsw1LHaydntTqFmslWTuuqKBHw8EcacfS0=; b=K7gLzajJncIuuAjaXVmWApMy4oCtxS/ufpblDsZatdOcoGZ1OMwW4xnaaamUb/A8mP WlbK0FlPrQtZrw59NAvDn87r4uk/EJm0vZk0d8mVRxbbdlyYYnJDk2TYCHPUlKBM4L2o Q7pKBMzfvpAj9zBnVchZGHNKa1UxjZqikE64Erma/6j1j35iHQXlvegs53hTgefPNWRV s5aLsSzUrl1SvT2peNDOeZj56eA4McJfLLbB+tw35ZpWJEw4bMLQAWyXAyWZx/tZ1qeD X9GknEYmkxxgyGphG05R0rNNZSQUWrugRz0KVclEnB+2Jj6BRVK6PAkwtNGVZfERuzhJ emEQ== X-Received: by 10.60.27.66 with SMTP id r2mr2352698oeg.139.1362764901921; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:48:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.26.74 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 09:47:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <717866F5-8CF6-4E2F-A1C4-BFC894D4D680@bsdimp.com> References: <5138CD6B.2050309@coosemans.org> <5138EA4C.1060001@FreeBSD.org> <5138F6EF.6020203@coosemans.org> <51390682.3020703@FreeBSD.org> <48120A0D-8A96-4D62-9C17-AE40E1DEF026@bsdimp.com> <51391CC1.5050200@coosemans.org> <717866F5-8CF6-4E2F-A1C4-BFC894D4D680@bsdimp.com> From: Eitan Adler Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 12:47:51 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: c89 broken on head? To: Warner Losh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkcmMiD0+xp3MBcDhiuW18YHq3UwJO4pNCnDE0aHMHY7AAe1ngNUwikUm7hM4cOV8wBBzXH Cc: Tijl Coosemans , freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:48:23 -0000 On 8 March 2013 12:40, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Mar 7, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: > >> On 7 March 2013 18:03, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >>> On 2013-03-07 22:36, Warner Losh wrote: >>>> On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: >>>>> On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>> Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't pos= sibly >>>>>> be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code ca= n be >>>>>> expected to add -std=3Dc11. >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure I buy that argument; if it were so, we should default t= o >>>>> K&R C instead, since "old code" (for some arbitrary definition of "ol= d") >>>>> could never have been expected to know about gcc defaulting to gnu89. >>> >>> My argument was to be practical, i.e. don't change what doesn't have to >>> change. >>> >>>> -std=3Dc11 is defintely too new, but maybe c89 is too old. >>>> >>>> I thought the c89 program actually was mandated by POSIX, no? >>> >>> Both were part of POSIX. c89 was a strict ISO c89 compiler, while cc wa= s >>> c89, but could additionally accept "an unspecified dialect of the C >>> language". http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xcu/cc.html >>> >>> So, if practicality isn't a good enough argument, maybe POSIX complianc= e >>> is? >> >> cc is marked as "LEGACY" which is described as optional ("need not be >> provided"). >> However, I would not be surprised if a non-zero number of ports depend >> on cc existing. >> >> If we are to remove it or change it, I would like to see that preceded >> by an exp-run. > > Removing cc is an exceedingly stupid idea. I think it should be preceded = by the heat death of the universe. It will cause nothing but gratuitous pai= n and suffering for our users and gain us absolutely nothing in return. Do = not even think about removing 'cc,' let alone trying to do an exp-run. The = idea is a non-starter and you'd be wasting your time. My comment included the proposal to modify it to use c99 (or c11). That change must also be preceded by an exp-run. I am not making the proposals, only responding to them. I agree that removing cc buys us nothing. --=20 Eitan Adler