Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 23:36:25 +0200 Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org writes: I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD in the near future (days, not weeks). +1 +1 -- WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone Internet SP FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
On Wednesday 02 June 2010 2:11:30 am Boris Samorodov wrote: On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 23:36:25 +0200 Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org writes: I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD in the near future (days, not weeks). +1 +1 +1 I think it is worth mentioning that FreeBSD is not the only platform strongly considering clang/llvm as an alternate toolchain, so we will not be going it alone. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
On May 31, 2010, at 21:30, Garrett Cooper wrote: How much time (with -j1, approximately) does it take to build clang? Numbers for -j4 are about 1100 sec to build llvm+clang with gcc and about 700 seconds to build llvm+clang with clang. -- Pawel___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
On May 31, 2010, at 16:57, Steve Kargl wrote: Can clang/LLVM build the livefs and bootonly CD's? There is a buildbot here[1] that builds a live CD for boot testing, so I would say it works. [1] http://amd64-clang-bot.qat.freebsd.org:8010/ -- Pawel___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 11:48:11PM +0200, Pawel Worach wrote:
On May 31, 2010, at 16:57, Steve Kargl wrote:
Can clang/LLVM build the livefs and bootonly CD's?
There is a buildbot here[1] that builds a live CD for boot
testing, so I would say it works.
[1] http://amd64-clang-bot.qat.freebsd.org:8010/
Clang cannot build a FreeBSD without the help of gcc.
http://amd64-clang-bot.qat.freebsd.org:8010/freebsd.diff
Index: sys/boot/i386/boot2/Makefile
===
--- sys/boot/i386/boot2/Makefile(revision 208675)
+++ sys/boot/i386/boot2/Makefile(working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
# $FreeBSD$
+CC=gcc
+
FILES= boot boot1 boot2
NM?= nm
ndex: sys/boot/i386/zfsboot/Makefile
===
--- sys/boot/i386/zfsboot/Makefile (revision 208675)
+++ sys/boot/i386/zfsboot/Makefile (working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
# $FreeBSD$
+CC=gcc
+
.PATH: ${.CURDIR}/../boot2
Index: sys/boot/i386/gptboot/Makefile
===
--- sys/boot/i386/gptboot/Makefile (revision 208675)
+++ sys/boot/i386/gptboot/Makefile (working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
# $FreeBSD$
+CC=gcc
+
.PATH: ${.CURDIR}/../boot2
FILES= gptboot
Index: sys/boot/i386/gptzfsboot/Makefile
===
--- sys/boot/i386/gptzfsboot/Makefile (revision 208675)
+++ sys/boot/i386/gptzfsboot/Makefile (working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
# $FreeBSD$
+CC=gcc
+
.PATH: ${.CURDIR}/../boot2 ${.CURDIR}/../gptboot ${.CURDIR}/../zfsboot
FILES= gptzfsboot
--
Steve
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
On Jun 2, 2010, at 23:57, Steve Kargl wrote: On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 11:48:11PM +0200, Pawel Worach wrote: On May 31, 2010, at 16:57, Steve Kargl wrote: Can clang/LLVM build the livefs and bootonly CD's? There is a buildbot here[1] that builds a live CD for boot testing, so I would say it works. [1] http://amd64-clang-bot.qat.freebsd.org:8010/ Clang cannot build a FreeBSD without the help of gcc. http://amd64-clang-bot.qat.freebsd.org:8010/freebsd.diff diff I believe this was mentioned already that boot2 overflows 512b. It is being worked on, http://llvm.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=6627,5039 -- Pawel ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 sources are ~45MB (the svn checkout is 97MB). Clang/LLVM is written in C++. 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 infrastructure and this is what we aim to integrate at first. The import of clang/LLVM was discussed at the toolchain summit May 10th but I would like to hear your opinion. I got approval from core@ on importing it. So please share your support or resistance to the idea of importing clang. Roman Divacky I've been waiting for this day since the first talk of PCC. I've watched ClangBSD on the FreeBSD wiki since it first appeared there and I'm delightfully surprised to see that it has progressed to this stage so quickly (what, has it only been 6 months or a year?). Clang also seems to have made a lot of progress (and quickly!) on their C++ support. I'm all for the import. I think you'll receive a wider user base of ClangBSD (including me) if you import it. Actually, the day it's imported and reported stable enough, I'll almost certainly sync to CURRENT Otherwise, there is no incentive for me since there isn't anything in CURRENT I'm curious about (yet). The only thing that concerns me, as was discussed extensively in your previous thread, are bugs in a relatively new compiler. Robert Watson's post is especially disturbing as he spent 4-6 hours determining that a problem was caused by a bug in the compiler. That's a lot of time spent. However, this will help mature LLVM/Clang which will benefit FreeBSD anyways. If LLVM/Clang is cutting-edge compiler technology, I'd have to agree that this will be the future anyways. Besides, LLVM/Clang offers all sorts of interesting developer tools and Clang itself appears to generate more useful and informative error messages and warnings than GCC ever did (with color too!). I think that alone is worth it. Best Regards, Nathan Lay ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
On May 31, 2010, at 12:52 AM, Roman Divacky wrote: Hi, I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD in the near future (days, not weeks). *nod of approval* -- Marcel Moolenaar xcl...@mac.com ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org writes: I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD in the near future (days, not weeks). +1 DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 C++. 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 infrastructure and this is what we aim to integrate at first. The import of clang/LLVM was discussed at the toolchain summit May 10th but I would like to hear your opinion. I got approval from core@ on importing it. So please share your support or resistance to the idea of importing clang. Roman Divacky pgpHiEeWDS1oU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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/ ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 Serve! -=- robe...@keltia.freenix.fr In memoriam to Ondine : http://ondine.keltia.net/ I will immediately begin testing clang as soon as it is imported in HEAD. Thanks for everyone's hard work, -- Chris Ruiz - http://twitter.com/chrisattack http://chrisattack.com ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 sources are ~45MB (the svn checkout is 97MB). Clang/LLVM is written in C++. 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 infrastructure and this is what we aim to integrate at first. The import of clang/LLVM was discussed at the toolchain summit May 10th but I would like to hear your opinion. I got approval from core@ on importing it. Can clang/LLVM build the livefs and bootonly CD's? -- Steve ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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) 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 C++. 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 infrastructure and this is what we aim to integrate at first. The import of clang/LLVM was discussed at the toolchain summit May 10th but I would like to hear your opinion. I got approval from core@ on importing it. Can clang/LLVM build the livefs and bootonly CD's? well.. it can build a slightly modified FreeBSD. I have no idea whats the difference between plain FreeBSD world and livefs and bootonly CD the modifications to the FreeBSD are mostly bug fixes that clang reveals. pgp8R2yNoCeKq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 infrastructure and this is what we aim to integrate at first. What about the thousands of ports? Also, have there been any tests done to compare the performance of the compiled binaries vs gcc? Thanks. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 licensed. The sources are ~45MB (the svn checkout is 97MB). Clang/LLVM is written in C++. 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 infrastructure and this is what we aim to integrate at first. The import of clang/LLVM was discussed at the toolchain summit May 10th but I would like to hear your opinion. I got approval from core@ on importing it. So please share your support or resistance to the idea of importing clang. Roman Divacky I already use clang for some things but I think the issue here is not support/resistance but something else: * IMHO for a change of this nature the core needs to publish a set of clear acceptance criteria for importing clang. Can this be done? * Since clang doesn't support all the archs, what is the plan for unsupported archs? a. Is FreeBSD going to have both compilers in the base? b. Is the project drop these FreeBSD ports? or c. Do people have to import gcc from ports to build these FreeBSD ports? * What about ports? * Basically the core needs to lay out a roadmap. 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. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 (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 C++. 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 infrastructure and this is what we aim to integrate at first. The import of clang/LLVM was discussed at the toolchain summit May 10th but I would like to hear your opinion. I got approval from core@ on importing it. So please share your support or resistance to the idea of importing clang. Roman Divacky I already use clang for some things but I think the issue here is not support/resistance but something else: * IMHO for a change of this nature the core needs to publish a set of clear acceptance criteria for importing clang. Can this be done? I asked core@ and they support the import * Since clang doesn't support all the archs, what is the plan for unsupported archs? a. Is FreeBSD going to have both compilers in the base? yes, this is what this import is about - importing clang, nothing else changes b. Is the project drop these FreeBSD ports? or no, of course not c. Do people have to import gcc from ports to build these FreeBSD ports? nothing is being changed, just one more application after a buildworld/installworld appears (that being clang) * What about ports? * Basically the core needs to lay out a roadmap. 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 project to enable ports to be usable with clang (or some other compiler) but thats orthogonal to this. pgp3eugjwYjdB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 have this weird idea that clang is replacing gcc, it isn't. For now ports will be compiled with gcc just like they were before. There are people working on getting ports to compile with clang, but that's a different project[1][2], and in my opinion, is somewhat offtopic for the current discussion. As for performance, I'm not sure. I wouldn't expect clang compiled binaries to be significantly faster/slower than gcc ones. [1] http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang [2] http://wiki.freebsd.org/SOC2010AndriusMorkunas -- Andrius ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 have a branch (clangbsd-import) that just includes clang/LLVM sources and the build infrastructure and this is what we aim to integrate at first. What about the thousands of ports? Also, have there been any tests done to compare the performance of the compiled binaries vs gcc? What about the ports? Lots of ports already have dependencies on GCC from ports as they don't build/run properly with GCC 4.2.1. How is this any different? There have been reports on other lists from people using Clang to build their ports, with very few failures. It's a simple matter to add a dependency on GCC from ports for those that do fail. Which is already being done for ports that don't work with GCC 4.2.1. Several -exp runs have already been done on the ports tree using Clang. No idea about benchmarks. -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 licensed. The sources are ~45MB (the svn checkout is 97MB). Clang/LLVM is written in C++. 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 infrastructure and this is what we aim to integrate at first. The import of clang/LLVM was discussed at the toolchain summit May 10th but I would like to hear your opinion. I got approval from core@ on importing it. So please share your support or resistance to the idea of importing clang. Roman Divacky Another user YES vote here; I will begin using clang on all of my FreeBSD HEAD machines after the import. Exciting! -Brandon ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 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 C++. : : 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 infrastructure and this is what we aim to integrate : at first. : : The import of clang/LLVM was discussed at the toolchain summit May 10th : but I would like to hear your opinion. I got approval from core@ on : importing it. : : So please share your support or resistance to the idea of importing clang. : : Roman Divacky : : I already use clang for some things but I think the issue : here is not support/resistance but something else: : : * IMHO for a change of this nature the core needs to publish :a set of clear acceptance criteria for importing clang. :Can this be done? : : I asked core@ and they support the import They support the import, in the context of the larger plan, which you've not articulated. Let's be clear here. : * Since clang doesn't support all the archs, what is the plan :for unsupported archs? :a. Is FreeBSD going to have both compilers in the base? : : yes, this is what this import is about - importing clang, : nothing else changes 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 gplv2 version. This will solve many problems. There's some other plans in this area as well, but the summary is basically integrating some important vendor patches. Second, we're planning to have the ability to use an external, perhaps vendor supplied, tool chain. You can kludge this together today, but it is tedious and difficult. :b. Is the project drop these FreeBSD ports? or : : no, of course not : :c. Do people have to import gcc from ports to build these : FreeBSD ports? : : nothing is being changed, just one more application after : a buildworld/installworld appears (that being clang) : : * What about ports? The plan that was articulated at the toolchain summit was to install clang as clang, and gcc as cc, so that /usr/ports continue to work. There's a lot of work needed to make all the ports work with clang. There's a summer of code project to make it possible to select a default compiler to built ports. There's a missing piece of functionality that was agreed to in the clang tree right now. There needs to be support for 'WITH_CLANG_BOOTSTRAP' to build the system with the clang, but leave gcc as the default compiler for ports. There also needs to be support for WITH_CLANG_IS_CC which would also make clang the default. : * Basically the core needs to lay out a roadmap. There was supposed to be a summary of the roadmap posted, but that's not yet happened... Roman really should have waited to push ahead until this was posted because it does answer the bigger picture questions. : 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 project to enable : ports to be usable with clang (or some other compiler) but thats : orthogonal to this. Part of the problem with this thread is that the whole, agreed plan wasn't laid out at the first part of it, so people are freaking out about what the plans are for the future. They were discussed and first order agreement was reached at the tool chains summit. But part of the agreement was to post the whole agreement so people know and understand the various trade offs. I think that would go a long way towards answering the questions that are being raised and to quell the visceral reaction that I've seen in this thread Warner ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 project to enable : ports to be usable with clang (or some other compiler) but thats : orthogonal to this. Part of the problem with this thread is that the whole, agreed plan wasn't laid out at the first part of it, so people are freaking out about what the plans are for the future. They were discussed and first order agreement was reached at the tool chains summit. But part of the agreement was to post the whole agreement so people know and understand the various trade offs. I think that would go a long way towards answering the questions that are being raised and to quell the visceral reaction that I've seen in this thread Exactly! I still urge core to lay out a clear plan. And don't forget to indicate the acceptance criteria to be met for each step! [Not to add bureaucracy but to ensure that nothing falls through the cracks] 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. Exciting to have a real alternative to gcc! ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 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 C++. 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 infrastructure and this is what we aim to integrate at first. The import of clang/LLVM was discussed at the toolchain summit May 10th but I would like to hear your opinion. I got approval from core@ on importing it. So please share your support or resistance to the idea of importing clang. Roman Divacky I already use clang for some things but I think the issue here is not support/resistance but something else: * IMHO for a change of this nature the core needs to publish a set of clear acceptance criteria for importing clang. Can this be done? I asked core@ and they support the import * Since clang doesn't support all the archs, what is the plan for unsupported archs? a. Is FreeBSD going to have both compilers in the base? yes, this is what this import is about - importing clang, nothing else changes b. Is the project drop these FreeBSD ports? or no, of course not c. Do people have to import gcc from ports to build these FreeBSD ports? nothing is being changed, just one more application after a buildworld/installworld appears (that being clang) How much time (with -j1, approximately) does it take to build clang? Thanks, -Garrett ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 gplv2 version. This will solve many problems. There's some other plans in this area as well, but the summary is basically integrating some important vendor patches. Second, we're planning to have the ability to use an external, perhaps vendor supplied, tool chain. You can kludge this together today, but it is tedious and difficult. 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 effort)? : b. Is the project drop these FreeBSD ports? or [...] Part of the problem with this thread is that the whole, agreed plan wasn't laid out at the first part of it, so people are freaking out about what the plans are for the future. They were discussed and first order agreement was reached at the tool chains summit. But part of the agreement was to post the whole agreement so people know and understand the various trade offs. I think that would go a long way towards answering the questions that are being raised and to quell the visceral reaction that I've seen in this thread +1 Thanks, -Garrett ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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 effort)? It used to possible, but people who did the work to support ICC dropped any support for their work the minute changes hit the tree and now it is impossible to say how far exactly it has rotten. -- Alexander Kabaev signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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. Exciting to have a real alternative to gcc! In software engineering , there is a concept : Formal Technical Reviews . In my opinion , one of the best reviewers of a software is a compiler of its language . Having a second compiler in FreeBSD , will make it much better than the present state . My wish would be to pursue a language intersection of both CLang and GCC compilers to be able to check their outputs . If I could have sufficient power ( health , time , etc. ) , I even want to try and make applicable one more compiler such as Portable C Compiler ( which is available in ports ) . Personally I am using two compilers ( Free Pascal and Delphi ) on a big program , and I am obtaining very good results either as very useful warnings or errors . In reality , to pursue such a multiple compiler usage is really difficult , but end result is making efforts very fruitful . I am using a similar technique for my Fortran programs . I can say that to rely on a single compiler is not a very robust way of software development after seeing quality of compiled programs : My policy is now Never use a single compiler without assuring that it is generating correct code when compared to other compilers even though the current compiler is tested on its test base . This is a result of so many combinations of a language usage that a test base can not cover but it may exist in a user program over time . This policy is developed by actual experiences . From these view points , workers on Clang adoption are making really a big contribution to the FreeBSD project and to its users . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
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. To improve the support of various : architectures, we're planning on doing two things. First, we're : updating binutils to the latest gplv2 version. This will solve many : problems. There's some other plans in this area as well, but the : summary is basically integrating some important vendor patches. : Second, we're planning to have the ability to use an external, perhaps : vendor supplied, tool chain. You can kludge this together today, but : it is tedious and difficult. : : 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 : effort)? This is more about dropping in different assemblers, linkers, etc, than picking icc. CC=xxx is relatively easy. It gets harder if you don't want to use the in-tree toolchain. Especially when cross building... Warner ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
