On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
hi,
ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we
aim to import into HEAD in roughly a week. We would like the initial
It was promised that before the
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org wrote:
hi,
ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we aim to
import
into HEAD in roughly a week. We would like the initial import to be as
painless
as possible and therefore we ask you to test
Hi,
I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
in the near future (days, not weeks).
clang/LLVM is a C/C++/ObjC compiler (framework) which aims to possibly
replace gcc. It is BSDL-like licensed. The sources are ~45MB (the
svn checkout is 97MB). Clang/LLVM is written in
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:55:39PM -0700, Xin LI wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
I just found that if I disable AES NI in BIOS setting, FreeBSD would
be able to detect it on boot with:
According to Roman Divacky:
So please share your support or resistance to the idea of importing clang.
Full support from me (but that will not be a surprise ;-))
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- robe...@keltia.freenix.fr
In memoriam to Ondine : http://ondine.keltia.net/
On 05/31/10 02:25, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Ivan Voras wrote:
Shouldn't SU+J be visible in the output of mount somehow? I've just
enabled it on a root file system of a machine and while tunefs and
dumpfs report both soft-updates and SUJ are enabled (after reboot),
the
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:03:17AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
hi,
ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we
aim to import into HEAD in roughly a
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:56:17PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:03:17AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
hi,
ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang
On May 31, 2010, at 3:56 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
My personal opinion is that pushing the import now at the present state
of clang makes a disservice to FreeBSD, and possible clang. Why not keep
the glue on the branch as it is ? Motivated testers willing to help
definitely can checkout
On May 31, 2010, at 3:08 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 05/31/10 02:25, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Ivan Voras wrote:
Shouldn't SU+J be visible in the output of mount somehow? I've just
enabled it on a root file system of a machine and while tunefs and
dumpfs report both
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:24:52PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:56:17PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:03:17AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman
2010/5/31 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:03:17AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
hi,
ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:54:29PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
2010/5/31 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:03:17AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
hi,
2010/5/31 Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:54:29PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
2010/5/31 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:03:17AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at
If I understand the build process correctly, it should be possible to
have both compilers in base for some (presumably short) period of
time... then just have which one you use be a configuration option,
which should give LLVM/clang some additional exposure, without the
obvious risks of a complete
there are no known clang bugs (at least known to me) related to FreeBSD
in other words - at this point you can compile FreeBSD with clang (both
in the version in clangbsd) and it works (for people who tested it)
on amd64 and i386
I don't mean about FreeBSD, but about CLANG itself.
It
people are already experimenting with clang installed from ports,
with gcc4.{3,4,5} from ports etc. by not importing clang we can
maybe delay this a little but it's coming anyway.
I am pretty much fine and happy with people experimenting with clang
or any other compilers from ports, custom
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org wrote:
people are already experimenting with clang installed from ports,
with gcc4.{3,4,5} from ports etc. by not importing clang we can
maybe delay this a little but it's coming anyway.
I am pretty much fine and happy with
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 06:55:17AM -0500, Astrodog wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org wrote:
people are already experimenting with clang installed from ports,
with gcc4.{3,4,5} from ports etc. by not importing clang we can
maybe delay this a little
On Mon, 31 May 2010 06:11:32 -0500
Astrodog astro...@gmail.com wrote:
If I understand the build process correctly, it should be possible to
have both compilers in base for some (presumably short) period of
time... then just have which one you use be a configuration option,
which should give
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
(...)
From what it was claimed, even without the import, users can install
whatever compiler from ports, set CC and start the build. Essentially,
the import blesses the clang and its current state as ready for wide use.
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.comwrote:
See, there is no objection to the idea that clang can and may eventually
displace gcc in the base. This is not the subject of the thread.
The question is whether it is beneficial for FreeBSD to import
infrastructure
on 29/05/2010 10:47 Andrew Reilly said the following:
Just to prefix with my config: FreeBSD duncan.reilly.home 9.0-CURRENT FreeBSD
9.0-CURRENT #7: Sat May 29 11:20:54 EST 2010
r...@duncan.reilly.home:/nb/obj/nb/src/sys/DUNCAN amd64 Current source tree
was csupped about half an hour ago.
I
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Scott Long wrote:
On May 31, 2010, at 3:56 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
My personal opinion is that pushing the import now at the present state of
clang makes a disservice to FreeBSD, and possible clang. Why not keep the
glue on the branch as it is ? Motivated testers
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 02:49:35AM -0500, Brandon Gooch wrote:
I'm running on a full ClangBSD system (world and kernel), and I've
had no issues for the past couple of days. I've had the machine
working nearly constantly -- building new and updating installed
ports, running several ezjails
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Ollivier Robert
robe...@keltia.freenix.fr wrote:
According to Roman Divacky:
So please share your support or resistance to the idea of importing clang.
Full support from me (but that will not be a surprise ;-))
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:52:48AM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
in the near future (days, not weeks).
clang/LLVM is a C/C++/ObjC compiler (framework) which aims to possibly
replace gcc. It is BSDL-like licensed. The
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Robert Watson wrote:
I think Kostik's question here is legitimate: clang maturity changes over
time. The earlier we adopt it, the sooner we get the advantages of clang --
but we also end up being the people who fault in more of the hard-to-diagnose
compiler bugs. Since
On 2010-05-31 16:49, Steve Kargl wrote:
So, what exactly should we expect, if anything, to break? :)
Did you build and install new boot code? ISTR that clang
can't compile src/sys/boot/i386/boot0 to the required
512 bytes.
No, boot0 is written in assembly, and run through the regular
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 05:07:44PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2010-05-31 16:49, Steve Kargl wrote:
So, what exactly should we expect, if anything, to break? :)
Did you build and install new boot code? ISTR that clang
can't compile src/sys/boot/i386/boot0 to the required
512
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 07:57:49AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:52:48AM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
in the near future (days, not weeks).
clang/LLVM is a C/C++/ObjC compiler (framework)
On 2010-05-31 17:18, Steve Kargl wrote:
Doesn't this imply that clang/llvm isn't quite ready for deployment.
Being able to boot a complete clang/llvm compiled FreeBSD system
would seem to be critical.
You can boot it just fine, only the boot2 part is compiled with gcc, for
now. Clang can
On 5/31/2010 3:52 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
Clang can compile all of FreeBSD on i386/amd64 including world and booting
kernel. Other architectures that are close to working are MIPS, PowerPC
and ARM. We have a branch (clangbsd-import) that just includes clang/LLVM
sources and the build
Doesn't this imply that clang/llvm isn't quite ready for deployment.
Being able to boot a complete clang/llvm compiled FreeBSD system
would seem to be critical.
This is why clang would be turned off by default. This import is just
making it easier to test the clangbsd branch. I'm all for this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 31/05/2010 16:03:07, Daniel Eischen wrote:
Is clangBSD able to support all our architectures? Does it
cross build for powerpc, mips, etc? Has it made a ports run
and does it successfully build and run most of our ports on
Tier-1 archs, and
On Mon, 31 May 2010 09:52:48 +0200 Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org wrote:
I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
in the near future (days, not weeks).
clang/LLVM is a C/C++/ObjC compiler (framework) which aims to possibly
replace gcc. It is BSDL-like
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:14:09AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 09:52:48 +0200 Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org
wrote:
I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
in the near future (days, not weeks).
clang/LLVM is a C/C++/ObjC compiler
On Mon, 31 May 2010 18:53:18 +0300, Mike Jakubik
mike.jaku...@intertainservices.com wrote:
What about the thousands of ports? Also, have there been any tests done
to compare the performance of the compiled binaries vs gcc?
This import is in no way directly related to ports. Somehow people
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Steve Kargl
s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 02:49:35AM -0500, Brandon Gooch wrote:
I'm running on a full ClangBSD system (world and kernel), and I've
had no issues for the past couple of days. I've had the machine
working
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Mike Jakubik
mike.jaku...@intertainservices.com wrote:
On 5/31/2010 3:52 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
Clang can compile all of FreeBSD on i386/amd64 including world and booting
kernel. Other architectures that are close to working are MIPS, PowerPC
and ARM. We
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 02:49 -0500, Brandon Gooch wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org wrote:
hi,
ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we aim to
import
into HEAD in roughly a week. We would like the initial import to be
On 2010-05-31 19:44, Alexandre Sunny Kovalenko wrote:
What is the good way to do installworld from CURRENT-snapshot to
ClangBSD? Half way through some shared object (run-time loader?) gets
overwritten and it is all signal 11 from there on.
Hi Alexandre,
A fix for this has already been applied
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
in the near future (days, not weeks).
clang/LLVM is a C/C++/ObjC compiler (framework) which aims to possibly
replace gcc. It is BSDL-like
In message: 20100531161713.ga60...@freebsd.org
Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org writes:
: On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:14:09AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
: On Mon, 31 May 2010 09:52:48 +0200 Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org
wrote:
:
: I would like to propose to integrate
On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:33:18 MDT M. Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
: It is clear that not everyone has the same view of what the
: acceptance criteria might be so publishing it would help
: people understand what to expect.
:
: nothing changes for the ports, there's an ongoing
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:14:09AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 09:52:48 +0200 Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org
wrote:
I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
in the
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:33 AM, M. Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
In message: 20100531161713.ga60...@freebsd.org
[...]
There's more context here too. To improve the support of various
architectures, we're planning on doing two things. First, we're
updating binutils to the latest
On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:35:33 -0700
Garrett Cooper yanef...@gmail.com wrote:
This in and of itself is an interesting prospect. Why would happen if
one could drop in icc for instance :) (I realize that it's basically
gcc-compatible, but can this be done today without a lot of rework and
Den 29/05/2010 kl. 15.02 skrev Roman Divacky:
ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we aim to
import
into HEAD in roughly a week. We would like the initial import to be as
painless
as possible and therefore we ask you to test ClangBSD to assure that the
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 20:10 +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2010-05-31 19:44, Alexandre Sunny Kovalenko wrote:
What is the good way to do installworld from CURRENT-snapshot to
ClangBSD? Half way through some shared object (run-time loader?) gets
overwritten and it is all signal 11 from
On Mon, 31 May 2010 08:18:42 -0700
Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 05:07:44PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2010-05-31 16:49, Steve Kargl wrote:
So, what exactly should we expect, if anything, to break? :)
Did you build and install new
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Bakul Shah ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:33:18 MDT M. Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
...
Can't speak for others but I am very appreciative of all the
work put in enthusiastically by Roman and others to get clang
into FreeBSD.
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 15:02 +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
hi,
ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we aim to
import
into HEAD in roughly a week. We would like the initial import to be as
painless
as possible and therefore we ask you to test ClangBSD to assure
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org wrote:
there are no known clang bugs (at least known to me) related to FreeBSD
in other words - at this point you can compile FreeBSD with clang (both
in the version in clangbsd) and it works (for people who tested it)
Matthew Seaman wrote:
Presumably the import of clang to the base does
not mean the immediate removal of gcc.
Of course not.
I'm not part of core and don't know what they
may have discussed, but I went through some hoops
to replace 'tar' and 'cpio' in the base system
and have some idea what
Before the developers summit at BSDCan a small group of developers and
industry partners held a summit on toolchain issues. The agenda along
with a number of slide sets appears on the wiki at:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/201005ToolchainSummit
The primary focus of the summit was our increasingly
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 03:52:27PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
Matthew Seaman wrote:
Presumably the import of clang to the base does
not mean the immediate removal of gcc.
Of course not.
I'm not part of core and don't know what they
may have discussed, but I went through some hoops
to
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Garrett Cooper yanef...@gmail.com wrote:
I personally would much rather have the glue in place to switch
between compilers and have things default to the base version of gcc
than just magically switch the compiler over to clang.
From all the threads I've read
Scott Long wrote:
Sounds like you're inviting the discussion right now. I'll start =-)
1. I hate gcc with the burning heat of a million suns. It's not a tool, it's
a political weapon wielded by the FSF and their acolytes. It's also a crummy
piece of software that has been good enough for
On 06/01/10 09:25, James R. Van Artsdalen wrote:
[snip interesting history]
I do suggest modifying the FreeBSD build process so that uname -a shows
the compiler and its version for both the kernel and userland.
Reading through this discussion, I wanted to draw attention to this
footnote in
On 05/31/10 17:46, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
On 06/01/10 09:25, James R. Van Artsdalen wrote:
[snip interesting history]
I do suggest modifying the FreeBSD build process so that uname -a shows
the compiler and its version for both the kernel and userland.
Reading through this discussion, I
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 05/31/10 17:46, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
On 06/01/10 09:25, James R. Van Artsdalen wrote:
[snip interesting history]
I do suggest modifying the FreeBSD build process so that uname -a shows
the compiler and its version
On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:30:04 +0300
Andriy Gapon a...@icyb.net.ua wrote:
Have you been playing with clang or other alternative compilers?
I have them all installed, but none are used by the build
process. My make.conf is relatively clean.
If not, then I think that it's your hardware.
I did
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Andrew Reilly arei...@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:30:04 +0300
Andriy Gapon a...@icyb.net.ua wrote:
Have you been playing with clang or other alternative compilers?
I have them all installed, but none are used by the build
process. My
On Mon, 31 May 2010 21:17:41 -0700
Garrett Cooper yanef...@gmail.com wrote:
What _is_ your make.conf though?
Just this:
#CC=clang
CFLAGS+=-g
CXXFLAGS+=-g
KERNCONF=DUNCAN
NO_LPR=YES
NO_SENDMAIL=YES
WITH_GTK2=yes
WITH_CUPS=yes
WITH_GECKO=libxul
#WITH_DEBUG=yes
A4=yes
QT4_OPTIONS=CUPS NAS
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Andrew Reilly arei...@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 21:17:41 -0700
Garrett Cooper yanef...@gmail.com wrote:
What _is_ your make.conf though?
Just this:
#CC=clang
CFLAGS+=-g
CXXFLAGS+=-g
KERNCONF=DUNCAN
NO_LPR=YES
NO_SENDMAIL=YES
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:01:15 +0100
Matthew Seaman m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk wrote:
Is it really such a bad thing to have gcc as a build-dependency
for various ported applications?
There are already ports that have gcc-4.4.4 as a dependency,
Hi Garrett,
On Mon, 31 May 2010 21:36:23 -0700
Garrett Cooper yanef...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok... there appear to be some interesting bits here, but I'm
curious... when was the last time that you did a build with clang, and
did you properly clean out /usr/obj, etc since your last compile?
I
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 02:53:22PM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:01:15 +0100
Matthew Seaman m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk wrote:
Is it really such a bad thing to have gcc as a build-dependency
for various ported applications?
There are already ports that have
In message: aanlktikx-vnfgzuvh4-cevikdjslqqjrahjevdqd-...@mail.gmail.com
Garrett Cooper yanef...@gmail.com writes:
: On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:33 AM, M. Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
: In message: 20100531161713.ga60...@freebsd.org
:
: [...]
:
: There's more context here too.
70 matches
Mail list logo
