Re: [mot] serious about clang/llvm?

2015-10-25 Thread Jay Patel 
You can get in touch with Eric Radman http://openports.se/lang/pcc may be
you can help port it to OpenBSD. :)

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Mayuresh Kathe  wrote:

> i have been reading up online news about the core team considering a move
> from 'gcc' to "clang/llvm".
> is it really true? wouldn't that add a whole lot of complexity to the base
> system? isn't clang/llvm written in c++11? wouldn't 'pcc' be a better
> alternative? especially because (i think) openbsd is striving to deliver a
> compact base install with as small a disk footprint as possible!
> i had heard rumours about the openbsd core team having a part of openbsd
> built using 'pcc', is it true? if yes, did that effort not produce
> desirable
> results?
> -mayuresh

Re: [mot] serious about clang/llvm?

2015-10-23 Thread Theo de Raadt 
> > Subject: Re: [mot] serious about clang/llvm?
> >
> > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Daniel Bolgheroni
> > > <dbolgher...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:43:50AM -0400, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > > >> i had heard rumours about the openbsd core team having a part of 
> > > >> openbsd
> > > >> built using 'pcc', is it true? if yes, did that effort not produce 
> > > >> desirable
> > > >> results?
> > > >
> > > > There are more things to LLVM/clang than its complexity and the fact
> > > > that it's written in C++. GCC is also pretty complex. For a better
> > > > clarification, check this:
> > > >
> > > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=137530560232232=2
> > > 
> > > That doesn't really answer any questions about pcc though...
> >
> > those were hopes and dreams.  not everything pans out.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> hmnn, is it because the openbsd team doesn't have someone to work on bringing
> 'pcc' up to openbsd's expectations?
> if someone came along to work exclusively on 'pcc' for openbsd, would the team
> reconsider using 'pcc' as the default compiler suite?

yes you better hire a group of people to work on it...

Don't we already do enough??

Good grief.

Re: [mot] serious about clang/llvm?

2015-10-23 Thread Karel Gardas 
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Daniel Bolgheroni
 wrote:

> There are more things to LLVM/clang than its complexity and the fact
> that it's written in C++. GCC is also pretty complex. For a better
> clarification, check this:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=137530560232232=2

This thread is from summer 2013. Has anything changed since this
w.r.t. LLVM/clang quality or platform support? I'm asking since IIRC
LLVM supports sparc64 and FreeBSD even uses that. Don't remember the
reference for this though. So I'm curious if there is any progress
which pushed LLVm/clang more near to the OpenBSD goal of LTS
compiler...

Thanks,
Karel

Re: [mot] serious about clang/llvm?

2015-10-23 Thread Ted Unangst 
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Daniel Bolgheroni
>  wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:43:50AM -0400, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> >> i had heard rumours about the openbsd core team having a part of openbsd
> >> built using 'pcc', is it true? if yes, did that effort not produce 
> >> desirable
> >> results?
> >
> > There are more things to LLVM/clang than its complexity and the fact
> > that it's written in C++. GCC is also pretty complex. For a better
> > clarification, check this:
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=137530560232232=2
> 
> That doesn't really answer any questions about pcc though...

> pcc
ksh: pcc: not found

does that help?

Re: [mot] serious about clang/llvm?

2015-10-23 Thread Raul Miller 
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Daniel Bolgheroni
 wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:43:50AM -0400, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>> i had heard rumours about the openbsd core team having a part of openbsd
>> built using 'pcc', is it true? if yes, did that effort not produce desirable
>> results?
>
> There are more things to LLVM/clang than its complexity and the fact
> that it's written in C++. GCC is also pretty complex. For a better
> clarification, check this:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=137530560232232=2

That doesn't really answer any questions about pcc though...

Thanks,

-- 
Raul

Re: [mot] serious about clang/llvm?

2015-10-23 Thread Theo de Raadt 
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Daniel Bolgheroni
>  wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:43:50AM -0400, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> >> i had heard rumours about the openbsd core team having a part of openbsd
> >> built using 'pcc', is it true? if yes, did that effort not produce 
> >> desirable
> >> results?
> >
> > There are more things to LLVM/clang than its complexity and the fact
> > that it's written in C++. GCC is also pretty complex. For a better
> > clarification, check this:
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=137530560232232=2
> 
> That doesn't really answer any questions about pcc though...

those were hopes and dreams.  not everything pans out.

Re: [mot] serious about clang/llvm?

2015-10-23 Thread Daniel Bolgheroni 
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:43:50AM -0400, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> i have been reading up online news about the core team considering a move
> from 'gcc' to "clang/llvm".
> is it really true? wouldn't that add a whole lot of complexity to the base
> system? isn't clang/llvm written in c++11? wouldn't 'pcc' be a better
> alternative? especially because (i think) openbsd is striving to deliver a
> compact base install with as small a disk footprint as possible!
> i had heard rumours about the openbsd core team having a part of openbsd
> built using 'pcc', is it true? if yes, did that effort not produce desirable
> results?

There are more things to LLVM/clang than its complexity and the fact
that it's written in C++. GCC is also pretty complex. For a better
clarification, check this:

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=137530560232232=2

Cheers,

-- 
db

Re: [mot] serious about clang/llvm?

2015-10-23 Thread Mayuresh Kathe 
> From dera...@openbsd.org  Fri Oct 23 09:23:36 2015
> From: Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org>
> To: Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com>
> cc: Mayuresh Kathe <mayur...@devio.us>,
> OpenBSD general usage list <misc@openbsd.org>
> Subject: Re: [mot] serious about clang/llvm?
>
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Daniel Bolgheroni
> > <dbolgher...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:43:50AM -0400, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > >> i had heard rumours about the openbsd core team having a part of openbsd
> > >> built using 'pcc', is it true? if yes, did that effort not produce 
> > >> desirable
> > >> results?
> > >
> > > There are more things to LLVM/clang than its complexity and the fact
> > > that it's written in C++. GCC is also pretty complex. For a better
> > > clarification, check this:
> > >
> > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=137530560232232=2
> > 
> > That doesn't really answer any questions about pcc though...
>
> those were hopes and dreams.  not everything pans out.
>
>
>

hmnn, is it because the openbsd team doesn't have someone to work on bringing
'pcc' up to openbsd's expectations?
if someone came along to work exclusively on 'pcc' for openbsd, would the team
reconsider using 'pcc' as the default compiler suite?