100% agreement with Mark here.
On 06/03/10 17:19, Mark Linimon wrote:
I'm just catching up with this thread, so apologies if this has already
been pointed out elsewhere.
One of the things that has been discussed w/rt compilers for a while
(not just at the devsummit) was bending our minds around
On 6/4/10, b. f. wrote:
> On 6/4/10, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 04/06/2010 11:13 b. f. said the following:
>>> Mark Linimon wrote:
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:18:41PM +0200, Alban Hertroys wrote:
>
> NetBSD allows one to set HAVE_BINUTILS=2.19 and use
>
> http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/s
On Thursday 03 June 2010 8:52:36 pm Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:22:05PM +0100, Bruce Cran wrote:
> > From previous messages I don't think sparc64 is currently supported by
> > clang very well, if at all, so I think we'll still need gcc in the base
> > system for some time.
>
>
On 6/4/10, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 08:13:55AM +, b. f. wrote:
>> How did you obtain "gcc4-errors"?
>
> bzgrep -q "See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions." Part
> of ports/Tools/portbuild/scripts/processonelog .
But are you actually building with lang/gcc4* a
>>
>> DragonFlyBSD and NetBSD use newer GCC?
>> This is the first time I hear about that.
>> No doubt about major Linux distributions, though.
>>
>
> AFAIK, NetBSD does it for quite a while since they have a different pov on
> this.
> http://www.thejemreport.com/content/view/317
That piece of "jo
On 4 June 2010 12:52, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 04/06/2010 11:13 b. f. said the following:
>> Mark Linimon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:18:41PM +0200, Alban Hertroys wrote:
Compiler bugs in gcc are probably just as hard to find as compiler bugs
in clang
>>> There are two types of
On 6/4/10, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 04/06/2010 11:13 b. f. said the following:
>> Mark Linimon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:18:41PM +0200, Alban Hertroys wrote:
Compiler bugs in gcc are probably just as hard to find as compiler bugs
in clang
>>> There are two types of compiler b
on 04/06/2010 11:13 b. f. said the following:
> Mark Linimon wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:18:41PM +0200, Alban Hertroys wrote:
>>> Compiler bugs in gcc are probably just as hard to find as compiler bugs
>>> in clang
>> There are two types of compiler bug: a) bug that produces bad code; b)
>
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 08:13:55AM +, b. f. wrote:
> How did you obtain "gcc4-errors"?
bzgrep -q "See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions." Part
of ports/Tools/portbuild/scripts/processonelog .
mcl
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing
Mark Linimon wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:18:41PM +0200, Alban Hertroys wrote:
>> Compiler bugs in gcc are probably just as hard to find as compiler bugs
>> in clang
>
>There are two types of compiler bug: a) bug that produces bad code; b)
>bug that makes the compiler crash.
>
Let's remember
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:22:05PM +0100, Bruce Cran wrote:
> From previous messages I don't think sparc64 is currently supported by
> clang very well, if at all, so I think we'll still need gcc in the base
> system for some time.
I'll put on my "tier-2 package builder hat" for a moment.
IMHO it
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:18:41PM +0200, Alban Hertroys wrote:
> Compiler bugs in gcc are probably just as hard to find as compiler bugs
> in clang
There are two types of compiler bug: a) bug that produces bad code; b)
bug that makes the compiler crash.
The latter number seems kind of low right
I'm just catching up with this thread, so apologies if this has already
been pointed out elsewhere.
One of the things that has been discussed w/rt compilers for a while
(not just at the devsummit) was bending our minds around separating the
concept of "base system compiler" from "default ports com
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Gerd Truschinski wrote:
>> Erik Cederstrand wrote:
>>>
>>> Den 31/05/2010 kl. 21.50 skrev Erik Cederstrand:
>>>
>>>
I do have a problem with buildworld on an unmodified ClangBSD src/ tree
within
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Gerd Truschinski wrote:
> Erik Cederstrand wrote:
>>
>> Den 31/05/2010 kl. 21.50 skrev Erik Cederstrand:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I do have a problem with buildworld on an unmodified ClangBSD src/ tree
>>> within a ClangBSD VM. Clang barfs on the mmintrin.h headers when buildi
Erik Cederstrand wrote:
Den 31/05/2010 kl. 21.50 skrev Erik Cederstrand:
I do have a problem with buildworld on an unmodified ClangBSD src/ tree within
a ClangBSD VM. Clang barfs on the mmintrin.h headers when building it's own
Lexer because it picks up the gcc version of the headers inste
Den 31/05/2010 kl. 21.50 skrev Erik Cederstrand:
> I do have a problem with buildworld on an unmodified ClangBSD src/ tree
> within a ClangBSD VM. Clang barfs on the mmintrin.h headers when building
> it's own Lexer because it picks up the gcc version of the headers instead of
> the clang vers
FWIW, I support the import.
I don't think GCC is as bad as other people think it is, but I also have
been gravely concerned of the the reduction of toolchains down close to
one in our business. That in and of itself warrants supporting any
viable alternative.
_
On 01.06.2010 20:57, Vanessa Kraus wrote:
> It's exciting that there may soon be an option other than gcc for
> FreeBSD. However I have a few questions. Is there going to be a system
> in place that will allow port maintainers to say "hey this port is now
> built successfully with Clang" or "hey
On 01.06.2010 16:55, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Attilio Rao writes:
>> I really would like to see CLANG more integrated with FreeBSD only
>> when there are 0 or similar (well-known, already analyzed, listed
>> somewhere, etc.) bugs by the compiler [...]
>
> Does this means you're planning to re
Attilio Rao writes:
> I really would like to see CLANG more integrated with FreeBSD only
> when there are 0 or similar (well-known, already analyzed, listed
> somewhere, etc.) bugs by the compiler [...]
Does this means you're planning to remove GCC, since it has tons of
known bugs?
DES
--
Dag-E
Kostik Belousov writes:
> I do not object to a single point in your message. On the other hand, all
> said could be labeled as distilled propaganda.
Perhaps, but...
> [...] This immediately makes the bug reports against HEAD almost
> useless, since level of demotivation when looking at the bug
On 6/1/2010 3:38 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> This is unsufficient. What could work is if clang provided some common
> symbol into all .o files generated by it, e.g. __clang_compiled. And
> then kernel considered tainted with corresponding banner printed when
> weak reference to that symbol is reso
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:18:41PM +0200, Alban Hertroys wrote:
>
> Compiler bugs in gcc are probably just as hard to find as
> compiler bugs in clang, but if you have multiple compilers
> at your disposal you can determine that you're probably
> looking at a compiler bug instead of a FreeBSD bug.
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 15:27:24 +0200
Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> There's a collection of tests in src/tools/regression which can be
> run by installing devel/p5-Test-Harness. It does seem like the tests
> are in a sorry state, as an insane amount of tests are failing for me:
I get quite a different r
Den 01/06/2010 kl. 12.19 skrev b. f.:
>
> Also, others have announced that they are running regression tests on
> systems built with clang. Would it be possible to set up some
> regularly scheduled tests to uncover possible problems, if this hasn't
> been done already?
As far as I know, regressi
I'm a bit disappointed in the polemical nature of some of the comments
in this thread. I think we're all better off because of the existence
of the FSF and their affiliates, and of a body of useful software
under the (L)GPL, even if we prefer another license. No one has
forced us to use the work
On 31 May 2010, at 11:56, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> My main concern is the usefulness of HEAD for routine bug-fixing process.
>
> The proposed merge makes it relatively easy for users to start compiling
> the system with CLang. Our HEAD userbase is one of the most valuable
> project asset to ensure
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 12:28:06 +0300, Lars Engels wrote:
It would be useful to exclude clang or gcc from the build manually.
You'd either have to fix a lot of ports or install gcc from ports
anyway. Excluding gcc isn't too useful at the moment, but I see how
that could be used in the future, onc
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 06:01:03PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote:
> 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 c
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:46:54AM +1000, 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.
>
> Read
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Garrett Cooper 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.
But I like my bikesheds painted gray.
Calling that a bikeshe
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 02:53:22PM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:01:15 +0100
> Matthew Seaman 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 dependenc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:01:15 +0100
Matthew Seaman 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, and
a few that still require g
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Doug Barton 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 for
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 want
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 Ja
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
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Garrett Cooper 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 on this subje
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 hoo
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 app
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Roman Divacky 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)
>> > on am
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 ass
On Mon, 31 May 2010 08:18:42 -0700
Steve Kargl 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 boot code? ISTR that
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 f
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
> r
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 app
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 02:49 -0500, Brandon Gooch wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 8:02 AM, 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
> > pai
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Steve Kargl
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 nearly constantly -- buildin
-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
> 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 thi
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 su
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
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 regula
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 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 ezja
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 wil
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>
> 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 to ease the cl
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Kostik Belousov 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.
>
Not necessari
On Mon, 31 May 2010 06:11:32 -0500
Astrodog 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 LLVM/clang some
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 06:55:17AM -0500, Astrodog wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Roman Divacky 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'
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Roman Divacky 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 people ex
> > 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,
> > 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 CLAN
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
2010/5/31 Roman Divacky :
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:54:29PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2010/5/31 Kostik Belousov :
>> > 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
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:54:29PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2010/5/31 Kostik Belousov :
> > 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 Kostik Belousov :
> 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
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 +020
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 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
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 i
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 8:02 AM, 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 assur
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 befor
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 import, the public discussion on
the mailing list will
75 matches
Mail list logo
