Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 21:08:35 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Davide Italiano <davide@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel build error in hwpmc with system GNU cc Message-ID: <20130502180834.GL3047@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CACYV=-HVU%2BdwiJsZ7mTnCW62aq%2BUjPOFRxE=HiQGXBR=cT-9XA@mail.gmail.com> References: <51820AFD.1030607@freebsd.org> <CACYV=-G2pxR8x%2Bi3ReajqXH6vHxXh8Ck3AgOQ3%2B8LEJQ_B_ACg@mail.gmail.com> <51826D52.6030403@freebsd.org> <CACYV=-HVU%2BdwiJsZ7mTnCW62aq%2BUjPOFRxE=HiQGXBR=cT-9XA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--vH3HHxf962mwD/qo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 04:12:36PM +0200, Davide Italiano wrote: > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 02.05.2013 14:06, Davide Italiano wrote: > >>> /usr/src/sys/modules/hwpmc/../../dev/hwpmc/hwpmc_core.c:1935: warning= : 'map' may be used uninitialized in this function > >>> *** [hwpmc_core.o] Error code 1 > > > >> You can find a patch attached at the end of this mail that should fix > >> the problem. > > > > Thanks, it fix this warning. > > > >> More generally speaking, why are you building -CURRENT using GCC while > >> the default compiler has been clang since November 2012? > > > > 1) clang is not ready for production, it is too buggy. See its fixes > > rate for very common things 'must work' in every compiler. It is > > included into -current not because of its quality, but to involve > > developers into clang bugfixes to make its progress faster, and > > personally me don't want to find clang bugs. > > > > 2) Its build time is too long. > > > > 3) It generates bigger code. > > > >> Putting the additional burden of > >> testing on the committer because two compilers are supported at the > >> same time doesn't scale really well, at least according to me. > > > > You'll hit this error later in any case, attempting to MFC your changes > > to -stable with GNU cc. > > > > -- > > bitcoin:13fGiNutKNHcVSsgtGQ7bQ5kgUKgEQHn7N >=20 >=20 > I won't object about your 2) and 3), but if you fear to hit bugs you > shouldn't probably run -CURRENT. > About the backport, I faced the problem of adapting code in the past > when merging to stable releases, so this is actually a different > problem. If I'd blindly merged the incrimined change to 9-STABLE > without building and notifying the GCC warning, then I would expect > you ranting at me because of build failure. > There's a notion of "default compiler" in 9 and in 10 and they're > different. My opinion is that people should live with it, and unless > someone will introduce some mechanism a-la redports.org to overcome > the issue, I will take my risks committing changes and fixing failures > if they occur. It's already really difficult to have tinderbox not > ranting these days, adding another compiler just result in another > dimension of complexity in the whole scenario. I experienced the same issues e.g. with the TTM commit, on somewhat bigger scale. There were 3 or 4 problems compiling the code with gcc, which were silently accepted by clang. Most ridiculous was clang silence on the double-declaration of the functions. For myself, I decided after the episode that I am morally unblended if default build is fine after the commit. For any compile issues reported by users with non-default compilers, I obviously take a look and do fix if possible, but I certainly do not intend to even try to test with non-default compiler on my own. --vH3HHxf962mwD/qo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRgquiAAoJEJDCuSvBvK1B0csP/06PV83F4/mTZJF2qMXV/FhQ /JzpyXn3VlBm1OndN0CwWb03wPhOrIccpAPK/nl+b3YYHN/XuOmY2knd6wA0mxky D5gFL9IRzSLbh+9nUlTyiEs1O+xySFxXjhmLSa6Xu55NVkAKFl5NX7XqQm6cQSlQ DZbxzUV8MaUm/r390jm3pN8k/feB5zzjoJOfBafU71OU7mRrdhlMlAcQ0+6igqcE t2yE/ID/YQqhUwbyFsEJRbmg1ff0CMSNpUBgZdGmNkPnTU7+3dTSoqyGdFZUTbCn kN+yyqfVg0HuyUZXSA+E5Qiin4PAxK+zfsTNR1r9jCaDGszejQFK9F6IbksOx63P 7lU02lNE2dcTlzF6N03nXRebUTZmxvFFYzW7KDNHU2EIAG73huGFjr3SiUYYyp8z OpviUcI7WxSmfGLe3iC/5qnbBM8QAT/0HGzcrZlHGe3b9LjIdmtUKAyinhVjBuzG CEQsRf+bL03gNlJJAi2eUBl7olxHU6fB2wSgmeaDioKE4oeGELPnFSIbllo60cIY Gm9s0PMiG8/YXEs1vVYiMi/CVy6QSzxmKqyHJJwNUetc4iyLKZ5FHWPZIeaWIrDI 1AJaFGoraH3tfL65r3bosgbs8Abmy6/uuTw6/K++0U6h13VD61C1aI1KaGhiWTl6 PFX5Tl0grztGY5qYXDqX =DnJH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vH3HHxf962mwD/qo--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130502180834.GL3047>