On Aug 27, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 08/25/13 18:41, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
I object. Many ports that compiles perfectly on gcc 4.2.1 can't be
compiled with lang/gcc. I checked this once and the number of ports
that require
On 08/25/13 18:41, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
I object. Many ports that compiles perfectly on gcc 4.2.1 can't be
compiled with lang/gcc. I checked this once and the number of ports
that require strictly gcc 4.2.1 was bigger for me then number of
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote:
A possible hack could be to add a check for USE_GCC=any to behave like
a USE_GCC=yes on HEAD on the affected platforms. This pulls in lang/gcc
from ports for a lot of people on HEAD I suppose.
I am planning to work on this a bit more once the two
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, Warner Losh wrote:
If you push gcc out to a port, and you have the 'external compiler'
toolchain support working correctly enough to build with this, why
don't we just push clang out to a port, and be done with it?
This is a stupid idea. It kills the tightly integrated
On Aug 25, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, Warner Losh wrote:
If you push gcc out to a port, and you have the 'external compiler'
toolchain support working correctly enough to build with this, why
don't we just push clang out to a port, and be done with it?
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote:
lang/gcc42 is on the list of ports that have USE_GCC=any. So you would
need to fix it first to be able to compile it with clang 3.3 from base.
I don't think so. :-)
You can install lang/gcc which builds just fine with clang, and
then use lang/gcc
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
I object. Many ports that compiles perfectly on gcc 4.2.1 can't be
compiled with lang/gcc. I checked this once and the number of ports
that require strictly gcc 4.2.1 was bigger for me then number of
ports that can't be compiled with clang but
Can all such ports be identified with a ports build run in a special chroot
without FreeBSD's FCC installed?
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 25, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
I object. Many ports that compiles perfectly on
On 23 Aug 2013, at 23:37, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
I'd dispute the 'and surely it seems like it does' part of this. Non x86
architectures will continue to use gcc because clang just isn't ready at this
time for them. Some are very close (arm), some are close (powerpc64, mips*),
On Aug 24, 2013, at 4:05 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
On 23 Aug 2013, at 23:37, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
I'd dispute the 'and surely it seems like it does' part of this. Non x86
architectures will continue to use gcc because clang just isn't ready at
this time for them. Some are
You know, I could be a total jerk and say:
If you push gcc out to a port, and you have the 'external compiler'
toolchain support working correctly enough to build with this, why don't we
just push clang out to a port, and be done with it?
... just saying.
-adrian
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 01:05:13AM +0400, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 06:54:44AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hi!
If firewire code doesn't build on clang correctly, have you filed a bug so
it gets looked at before 10.0 is released? that's pretty broken
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
You know, I could be a total jerk and say:
If you push gcc out to a port, and you have the 'external compiler'
toolchain support working correctly enough to build with this, why don't we
just push clang out to a port,
I don't know if you are aware that IF you really do that we will have serious
problems to ship packages for 10. USE_GCC=any is the fallback in the
portstree for all ports that are unable to build with clang which was introduced
when HEAD switched to clang as default cc. Right now there are 150
On 23 Aug 2013, at 10:58, Bernhard Fröhlich de...@freebsd.org wrote:
I don't know if you are aware that IF you really do that we will have serious
problems to ship packages for 10. USE_GCC=any is the fallback in the
portstree for all ports that are unable to build with clang which was
On 8/23/13 6:35 PM, David Chisnall wrote:
On 23 Aug 2013, at 10:58, Bernhard Fröhlich de...@freebsd.org wrote:
I don't know if you are aware that IF you really do that we will have serious
problems to ship packages for 10. USE_GCC=any is the fallback in the
portstree for all ports that are
23.08.2013 13:16, David Chisnall пишет:
I have a patch that I intend to commit before the 10.0 code slush that
removes GCC and libstdc++ from the default build on platforms where clang is
the system compiler. We definitely don't want to be supporting our
6-year-old versions of these for
On 23 Aug 2013, at 11:42, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
no, I believe we have said that 10 would ship with clang by default. NO
mention was made about gcc being absent, and I am uncomfortable with taking
that step yet. Having gcc just present, will not hurt you.. even after it
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:35 PM, David Chisnall thera...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 23 Aug 2013, at 10:58, Bernhard Fröhlich de...@freebsd.org wrote:
I don't know if you are aware that IF you really do that we will have serious
problems to ship packages for 10. USE_GCC=any is the fallback in the
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 06:42:21PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 8/23/13 6:35 PM, David Chisnall wrote:
On 23 Aug 2013, at 10:58, Bernhard Fr?hlich de...@freebsd.org wrote:
I don't know if you are aware that IF you really do that we will have
serious
problems to ship packages for
23.08.2013 12:58, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote:
I don't know if you are aware that IF you really do that we will have serious
problems to ship packages for 10. USE_GCC=any is the fallback in the
portstree for all ports that are unable to build with clang which was introduced
when HEAD switched to
on 23/08/2013 14:06 David Chisnall said the following:
Our gcc is from 2007. It has no C11, no C++11 support. It has bugs in its
atomic generation so you can't use it sensibly without lots of inline
assembly (which it doesn't support for newer architectures) for
multithreaded things.
Our
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Volodymyr Kostyrko c.kw...@gmail.com wrote:
23.08.2013 12:58, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote:
I don't know if you are aware that IF you really do that we will have
serious
problems to ship packages for 10. USE_GCC=any is the fallback in the
portstree for all ports
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 12:06 +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
On 23 Aug 2013, at 11:42, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
no, I believe we have said that 10 would ship with clang by default. NO
mention was made about gcc being absent, and I am uncomfortable with taking
that step yet.
On 08/23/13 07:26, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 23/08/2013 14:06 David Chisnall said the following:
Our gcc is from 2007. It has no C11, no C++11 support. It has bugs in its
atomic generation so you can't use it sensibly without lots of inline
assembly (which it doesn't support for newer
On 23 Aug 2013, at 13:26, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
On the other hand these tools are perfect for building FreeBSD kernel and
base.
Extrapolating my experience with base GCC I am very confident in it as a
FreeBSD development tool.
Extrapolating my experience with Clang I am not
on 23/08/2013 15:34 Nathan Whitehorn said the following:
On 08/23/13 07:26, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 23/08/2013 14:06 David Chisnall said the following:
Our gcc is from 2007. It has no C11, no C++11 support. It has bugs in its
atomic generation so you can't use it sensibly without lots of
On Aug 23, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
I have a patch that I intend to commit before the 10.0 code
slush that removes GCC and libstdc++ from the default build on
platforms where clang is the system compiler. We definitely don't
want to be supporting our 6-year-old versions
On 23 Aug 2013, at 14:52, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
No. That breaks non x86 architecutres. gcc must remain in base for now, or
there's no bootstrap ability. Nobody has done the lifting to cleanly
integrate gcc as a port into buildworld, althogh Brooks' work gets us most of
the way
On Aug 23, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Ian Lepore wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 12:06 +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
On 23 Aug 2013, at 11:42, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
no, I believe we have said that 10 would ship with clang by default. NO
mention was made about gcc being absent, and
On Aug 23, 2013, at 7:54 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
On 23 Aug 2013, at 14:52, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
No. That breaks non x86 architecutres. gcc must remain in base for now, or
there's no bootstrap ability. Nobody has done the lifting to cleanly
integrate gcc as a port into
As for me I expect something like this:
. 9.x gcc default and clang in base;
. 10.x clang default and gcc in base;
. 11.x gcc withdraw.
There is also the concern whether clang in base will reliably build gcc
required for some ports, and then there are those CPU architectures for which
clang
On 8/23/13 8:26 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 23/08/2013 14:06 David Chisnall said the following:
Our gcc is from 2007. It has no C11, no C++11 support. It has bugs in its
atomic generation so you can't use it sensibly without lots of inline
assembly (which it doesn't support for newer
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 06:54:44AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hi!
If firewire code doesn't build on clang correctly, have you filed a bug so
it gets looked at before 10.0 is released? that's pretty broken
code/behaviour.
How I can do it correctly?
Currently in src.conf:
WITHOUT_CLANG=yes
On 8/23/13 3:35 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
On 23 Aug 2013, at 10:58, Bernhard Fröhlich de...@freebsd.org wrote:
I don't know if you are aware that IF you really do that we will have serious
problems to ship packages for 10. USE_GCC=any is the fallback in the
portstree for all ports that are
On Aug 23, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 8/23/13 3:35 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
On 23 Aug 2013, at 10:58, Bernhard Fröhlich de...@freebsd.org wrote:
I don't know if you are aware that IF you really do that we will have
serious
problems to ship packages for 10. USE_GCC=any
36 matches
Mail list logo