On 2012-Sep-11, 23:29, Doug Barton wrote:
What we need to do is what I and others have been asking to do for
years. We need to designate a modern version of gcc (no less than 4.6)
as the official default ports compiler, and rework whatever is needed to
support this. Fortunately, that goal is
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 08:21:31AM +0200, Pietro Cerutti wrote:
On 2012-Sep-11, 23:29, Doug Barton wrote:
What we need to do is what I and others have been asking to do for
years. We need to designate a modern version of gcc (no less than 4.6)
as the official default ports compiler, and
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports
build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to.
I think this is a mis-representation.
Adding the requirement your ports must work on clang is adding an
On 12 Sep 2012, at 10:15, Mark Linimon lini...@lonesome.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports
build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to.
I think this is a
On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with
USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang?
Unfortunately it isn't that simple. We already have a statistically
significant number of ports that don't even compile with
On 09/11/2012 11:15 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports
build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to.
I think this is a mis-representation.
Adding the
Den 12/09/2012 kl. 11.29 skrev Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org:
On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with
USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang?
Unfortunately it isn't that simple. We already have a
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:29:27 -1000
Doug Barton articulated:
What we need to do is what I and others have been asking to do for
years. We need to designate a modern version of gcc (no less than 4.6)
as the official default ports compiler, and rework whatever is needed
to support this.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 04:15:20AM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports
build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to.
I think this is a mis-representation.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:03:43PM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
two of the ports I maintain don't build with CLANG, yet. I
just checked that on the wiki page [1].
To repeat myself, the ports I've listed on that page are the big
problems. People need to look at the errorlogs URLs up at the
top to
On 9/12/2012 12:40 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
Den 12/09/2012 kl. 11.29 skrev Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org:
On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports
with USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang?
On 9/12/2012 1:22 AM, Jerry wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:29:27 -1000
Doug Barton articulated:
What we need to do is what I and others have been asking to do for
years. We need to designate a modern version of gcc (no less than 4.6)
as the official default ports compiler, and rework
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 9/12/2012 1:22 AM, Jerry wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:29:27 -1000
Doug Barton articulated:
What we need to do is what I and others have been asking to do for
years. We need to designate a modern version of gcc (no
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org writes:
On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with
USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang?
Unfortunately it isn't that simple. We already have a statistically
significant
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:54:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
As of last week, 4,680 ports out of 23,857 failed to build with clang on
9-amd64. That's almost a 20% failure rate. Until we have better support
for either building ports with clang, or have better support for the
idea of a ports
On 09/11/2012 02:27 AM, Lars Engels wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:54:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
As of last week, 4,680 ports out of 23,857 failed to build with clang on
9-amd64. That's almost a 20% failure rate. Until we have better support
for either building ports with clang, or have
--On September 11, 2012 2:44:03 AM -0700 Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org
wrote:
Doug, as you can already use CLANG instead of GCC now, you will be able
to use GCC instead of CLANG after November 4th.
There's lots of things I _can_ do, what we're discussing is what the
defaults should be.
At
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
As of last week, 4,680 ports out of 23,857 failed to build with clang on
9-amd64. That's almost a 20% failure rate. Until we have better support
for either building ports with clang, or have better support for the
idea of a ports compiler, this
18 matches
Mail list logo
