> > This is starting to turn into a bikeshed, but anyway... > > on 16/11/2012 12:00 Daniel Braniss said the following: > > the question as to what compiler was used to compile the kernel is a bit of > > an > > oxymoron, since the kernel is made up of many different modules, which get > > compiled > > either by different compilers, or different compiler flags. > > The canonical way to compile a kernel is to use buildkernel and compile > modules
this does not guarantee uniformity, just look at the output it produces and you will see different compilers/assemblers/scripts/flags > along with the kernel. Other configurations are supported too, of course. > > > since the compiler does 'sign' the modules it compiles (and clang > > will/should > > do it soon: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=7292) some tool like > > file(1) could be modified to provide it, or config -x (8) ... > > The key word in your note about clang is 'soon' as in 'not yet'. Dimitry wrote that he will handle it :-) > > Besides, when I see a bug report with a dmesg *I* want to immediately know > what > compiler was used there. today it's clang vs. gcc -- transition time --, but again it's only part of the story, and soon it will only be noise. > > > IMHO, the only meaningfull information added to uname was the svn/git(and > > hopefully hg) rev. version. > > > -- > Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
