In our previous episode, Matthias Andree said:
So far I've found clang surprisingly good in that it revealed a few
quirks in my own software (in C) that GCC or ICC had silently accepted,
and the static analyzer has a few rough edges, but I have found bugs in
my own software, not in clang
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:40:38AM +0100, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Matthias Andree said:
So far I've found clang surprisingly good in that it revealed a few
quirks in my own software (in C) that GCC or ICC had silently accepted,
and the static analyzer has a
Am 18.03.2011 15:17, schrieb Konstantin Tokarev:
17.03.2011, 20:33, Matthias Andreematthias.and...@gmx.de:
Not necessarily. If it's a documented extension that you'd allowed (and
even by sticking to the implicit gnu89 language default of GCC) then
you'll hardly hear back anything else than
16.03.2011, 11:33, Alberto Villa avi...@freebsd.org:
On Wednesday 16 March 2011 09:15:07 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
From http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html
In addition to the language extensions listed here, Clang aims to
support
a broad range of GCC extensions.
So
17.03.2011, 15:39, Konstantin Tokarev annu...@yandex.ru:
16.03.2011, 11:33, Alberto Villa avi...@freebsd.org;:
On Wednesday 16 March 2011 09:15:07 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
From http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html
In addition to the language extensions listed here,
Am 12.03.2011 23:00, schrieb Doug Barton:
Howdy,
As many of you are no doubt already aware, much work has been undertaken
to make clang the default compiler for the src tree starting with
9.0-RELEASE. It is not 100% certain that this change will be made, but
it's looking more likely every day.
Am 17.03.2011 14:07, schrieb Konstantin Tokarev:
17.03.2011, 15:39, Konstantin Tokarevannu...@yandex.ru:
16.03.2011, 11:33, Alberto Villaavi...@freebsd.org;:
On Wednesday 16 March 2011 09:15:07 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
From http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html
In
Am 16.03.2011 12:02, schrieb Ade Lovett:
On Mar 16, 2011, at 05:45 , Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
16.03.2011, 13:33, Ade Lovetta...@freebsd.org:
On Mar 16, 2011, at 04:39 , Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
What will happen to ports in non-clang arches (sparc64, ia64) after 9.0R?
With any luck,
16.03.2011, 02:27, Alberto Villa avi...@freebsd.org:
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 19:20:40 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
3. Fix Clang to compile more ports
lots of problems are due to gcc-isms in software, so it's not always possible
From http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html
In
On Wednesday 16 March 2011 09:15:07 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
From http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html
In addition to the language extensions listed here, Clang aims to
support
a broad range of GCC extensions.
So GCC extensions may also be considered as missing features.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:20:40PM +0300, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
13.03.2011, 01:00, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org:
Howdy,
As many of you are no doubt already aware, much work has been undertaken
to make clang the default compiler for the src tree starting with
9.0-RELEASE. It is
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:19:48AM +0100, Erwin Lansing wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:20:40PM +0300, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
13.03.2011, 01:00, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org:
Howdy,
As many of you are no doubt already aware, much work has been undertaken
to make clang
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:39:38AM +, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
Note that these 3 are not mutually exclusive. The clang developers have
been very responsive on earlier bugs we found and they are usually fixed
quickly, so I'm sure that if real bugs in clang are found they will be
On Mar 16, 2011, at 04:39 , Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
What will happen to ports in non-clang arches (sparc64, ia64) after 9.0R?
With any luck, they will die a silent death and be pointed in the direction of
NetBSD that likes to look after irrelevant architectures. i386/amd64 for
primary use,
16.03.2011, 13:33, Ade Lovett a...@freebsd.org:
On Mar 16, 2011, at 04:39 , Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
What will happen to ports in non-clang arches (sparc64, ia64) after 9.0R?
With any luck, they will die a silent death and be pointed in the direction
of NetBSD that likes to look after
On Mar 16, 2011, at 05:45 , Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
16.03.2011, 13:33, Ade Lovett a...@freebsd.org:
On Mar 16, 2011, at 04:39 , Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
What will happen to ports in non-clang arches (sparc64, ia64) after 9.0R?
With any luck, they will die a silent death and be pointed
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:02:55AM -0500, Ade Lovett wrote:
On Mar 16, 2011, at 05:45 , Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
16.03.2011, 13:33, Ade Lovett a...@freebsd.org:
On Mar 16, 2011, at 04:39 , Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
What will happen to ports in non-clang arches (sparc64, ia64) after
On 03/16/2011 02:39 AM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:19:48AM +0100, Erwin Lansing wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:20:40PM +0300, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
13.03.2011, 01:00, Doug Bartondo...@freebsd.org:
Howdy,
As many of you are no doubt already aware, much work
13.03.2011, 01:00, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org:
Howdy,
As many of you are no doubt already aware, much work has been undertaken
to make clang the default compiler for the src tree starting with
9.0-RELEASE. It is not 100% certain that this change will be made, but
it's looking more
On Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 11:20:40 PDT Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
3. Fix Clang to compile more ports
That would be my vote too, but we should probably focus on solutions the
ports team can control.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
15.03.2011, 21:32, Charlie Kester corky1...@comcast.net:
On Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 11:20:40 PDT Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
3. Fix Clang to compile more ports
That would be my vote too, but we should probably focus on solutions the
ports team can control.
You can post bug reports to Clang team.
On Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 11:39:28 PDT Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
15.03.2011, 21:32, Charlie Kester corky1...@comcast.net:
On Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 11:20:40 PDT Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
3. Fix Clang to compile more ports
That would be my vote too, but we should probably focus on solutions the
On Mar 15, 2011, at 14:14 , Charlie Kester wrote:
Of course, we should definitely do that.
But ports team should have a plan in place, in case those PR's aren't
resolved in time.
A single, really small boot/livefs/install with no packages (half-smiley)
In all seriousness, with a change of
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 19:20:40 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
3. Fix Clang to compile more ports
lots of problems are due to gcc-isms in software, so it's not always possible
--
Alberto Villa, FreeBSD committer avi...@freebsd.org
http://people.FreeBSD.org/~avilla
The yankees, son, are up north.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 02:00:33PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
1. Fix all ports to compile with both gcc 4.2 (for RELENG_[78]) and clang.
I do not believe we have enough time before 9.0R to accomplish this;
especially as I understand that there is pressure within the src committer
community to
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 02:00:33PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Howdy,
As many of you are no doubt already aware, much work has been
undertaken to make clang the default compiler for the src tree
starting with 9.0-RELEASE. It is not 100% certain that this change
will be made, but it's looking
Hi,
I think some option like CLANG_SAFE or USE_CLANG (just
saying, perhaps a better name can be found) should be added [...]
I also think that it would be very useful to go the same route
as with MAKE_JOBS, i.e., ports can opt in, and in the long run opt out,
of being build with clang. In my
27 matches
Mail list logo
