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 not 100% certain that this change will be made, but > > it's looking more likely every day. > > > > This raises an interesting question for how to deal with compiling ports > > after 9.0 is released. So far there are 2 main ideas for how to deal > > with this: > > > > 1. Fix all ports to compile with both gcc 4.2 (for RELENG_[78]) and clang. > > 2. Adopt an official "ports compiler," which would likely be one of the > > gcc versions from the ports tree itself, and update all ports to work > > with it. > > 3. Fix Clang to compile more ports > 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 happy to hear about them. Fixing ports to work with both gcc and clang should also be a good target to reach for, but given the amount of ports this is unrealistic to be finished before 9.0 is released.
There are a few PRs already in GNATS that generalize the compiler settings for ports that portmgr have been looking into, but more work is needed. The idea is to extend the USE_GCC framework to a USE_COMPILER (or similar) macro that can force a port to use gcc, clang or another compiler with a default compiler that easily can be flipped. I've also run a few full builds on the pointyhat cluster with clang as the default compiler, mostly to check for clang bugs and we'll do more rounds with the results posted here to get help with fixing individual ports. -erwin -- Erwin Lansing http://droso.org Prediction is very difficult especially about the future er...@freebsd.org
pgpYkgwWjZFsk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
