On 9/12/2012 12:40 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> Den 12/09/2012 kl. 11.29 skrev Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org>:
>> On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
>>> So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports
>>> with USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang?
>> Unfortunately it isn't that simple. We already have a
>> statistically significant number of ports that don't even compile
>> with gcc 4.2.1. How many compilers do we expect the users to
>> install? :)
> If a port doesn't compile with the default compiler in base, I expect
> that port to add a build dependency on the compiler that it actually
> does compiles with.

Yes, they do this now. The problem is that the set is growing, and the
rate of growth is increasing.

> Of course, I hope to not have 6 different
> compilers installed on my system, but the list of build or runtime
> dependencies are at the discretion of the port (maintainer). As you
> (I think) said, we can't force port maintainers to patch their ports
> to support clang.

Those are unrelated issues. Please re-read the bits of my post that you
snipped. The overwhelming majority of problems we have with compiling
ports now would be fixed by having a modern version of gcc as the
official (i.e., supported) "ports compiler." The clang efforts would be
a parallel track.


freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to