On 4/6/18, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Monday, April 02, 2018 12:27:47 PM Ed Maste wrote:
>> On 31 March 2018 at 14:41, Mark Linimon <lini...@lonesome.com> wrote:
>> This is the most important point of this discussion: we do need to
>> ensure there's good communication and coordination between teams where
>> dependencies like this exist. I'll take the blame here: Dimitry asked
>> me about merging the Clang update to stable/11 and I agreed that it
>> was reasonable to merge sooner rather than later to have as much lead
>> time as possible before the 11.2 process starts. I also assumed that
>> outstanding Clang 6 issues in ports were farther along in being
>> addressed.
>> The key lesson from this discussion is that for significant commits
>> and merges like this one we should make sure to always have sufficient
>> advance notice.
> Is this driven by -mretpoline?

Don't think so since it requires LLD as linker. The LLVM 5 which was already
part of the 11-stable has the retpoline option. See r331219.

>From other side, I like to see a newer compiler sets in the recent
releases, because
there are lot of performance improvements and other fixes.

> That is, would we not be as aggressive
> with pushing for clang 6 in 11.2 if it weren't for that?  I kind of feel
> like we probably wouldn't and would have left it at 5 and let clang 6 be
> a FreeBSD 12 thing.  Was -mretpoline backported to clang 5 (I thought
> there was some talk of providing patches for clang 5)?
> --
> John Baldwin
> _______________________________________________
> svn-src-stable...@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-stable-11
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "svn-src-stable-11-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to