On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:52:27AM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote: > ??, 16 ???. 2020 ?. ? 11:35, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>: > > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 10:54:56PM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote: > > > ??, 14 ???. 2020 ?. ? 14:23, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > Hi Ilya, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 11:46:45AM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > let us use clang-9 instead of default clang-7 for linux builds. > > > > > > > > It seems I missed this one. Now applied carefully, we'll see. If it > > > > causes new failures, we'll adjust accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > BoringSSL is not happy > > > https://travis-ci.com/github/haproxy/haproxy/jobs/298267505 > > > > > > I'll have a look > > > > It's complaining about this: > > > > error: unknown warning option '-Wno-free-nonheap-object'; did you mean > > '-Wno-sequence-point'? [-Werror,-Wunknown-warning-option] > > > > https://bugs.chromium.org/p/boringssl/issues/detail?id=323
Great, thank you. > > Thus it's pretty clear that boringssl uses hard-coded gcc options and > > is not even meant to be built with clang. We should probably roll back > > to gcc for this one. I can do it if you want. > > > > we use clang because of its address sanitizer. I found gcc asan more noisy > and less usable. > > > anyway, we can switch back to clang-7 or gcc, until boringssl will fix that. OK, I'll check which entry it is and revert the relevant part. Willy
