Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 02:21:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stop installing /usr/bin/clang Message-ID: <201908160921.x7G9LOtm029956@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <20190816091025.GO2738@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 09:47:41AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: > > On 15/08/2019 17:48, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > Please look at https://reviews.freebsd.org/D21060 > > > I propose to stop installing /usr/bin/clang, clang++, clang-cpp. > > > > > > It probably does not matter when all your software comes from ports or > > > packages, but is actually very annoying when developing on FreeBSD. > > > In particular, you never know which `clang' is called in the user > > > environment, because it depends on the $PATH elements ordering. > > > > What is the confusion here? > Between /usr/bin/clang and /usr/local/bin/clang. Why is that a confusion? Any installed port that overloades a base system component expects to do exactly that type of thing. Why is clang special in this respect? > > The binary that is invoked as clang is from the base system. > Not necessary. > > > The binary that is invoked as clang{version number} is from ports. > This is irrelevant. > > > If the user has built clang from source and has set up > > their path to put that first, then they will get a different clang, but > > there's no way we can stop that kind of behaviour. > This is irrelevant as well. > > You did not read neither review summary nor followups. clang also > comes from devel/llvm. Users that want clang do install it, esp. when > version in base is different. Exactly what is installed from devel/llvm that was not covered below as clang-devel? And why is it any different than any other port of clang listed below? > > For reference, on my machine, I have: > > > > clang <- this one is from the base system > > clang60 <- this one if from ports > > clang70 <- this one if from ports > > clang80 <- this one if from ports > > clang-devel <- this one if from ports > > > > Nothing in my PATH order affects this. > > > > The only source of confusion that I regularly encounter comes from the > > fact that FreeBSD packages install clang80, when every other system > > installs clang-8, so I end up having to have a special case in CMake > > logic for finding specific versions of tools like clang-format on FreeBSD. > > > > That said, I don't know what the impact would be on configure scripts if > > we didn't have a clang binary. CMake seems to run ${CC} -v and parse > > the output, so it's quite happy finding that cc is clang (and the > > specific version). How do most autoconf things handle this? Apple > > shipped a gcc symlink to clang for years because, in the absence of a > > gcc binary, a load of programs detected /usr/bin/cc and decided not to > > enable any GNU extensions. We've managed to avoid having to do that, > > but how many things look for clang, gcc, and cc in the path and enable > > features based on which one they find? > > I plan to ask for exp run with the patch after some more time to gather > feedback. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201908160921.x7G9LOtm029956>