Am 12.03.2011 23:00, schrieb Doug Barton:
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.
Both options have pros and cons, but rather than front-load the
conversation about them I'd like to throw open the topic for discussion
and see what people think about these options, and whether someone has a
better idea.
The question is how many ports will silently assume they're running
under GCC, and how compatible clang is.
So far I've found clang surprisingly good in that it revealed a few
quirks in my own software (in C) that GCC or ICC had silently accepted,
and the static analyzer has a few rough edges, but I have found bugs in
my own software, not in clang 2.8 so far, although I suspect that a few
might linger there.
We have USE_GCC, currently often used to use a newer GCC version than
what is in the base system, and I suppose this feature will remain there
for a loooong time.
So my proposal is:
3. Stronly prefer (1), fix the ports. If the port can't be made to work
with clang with reasonable effort, we have a fallback solution and can
set USE_GCC until the port gets fixed (which the important ones probably
will). Add support for USE_GCC=yes to set a sane default, f. i. 4.2+).
For simpler upgrades, that makes the port GCC version agnostic but
still states "clang won't work".
Rationale:
NOT adopting a particular ports compiler is a unique chance to get
upstream software more portable (on the assumption that the majority of
portability patches will sooner or later travel and get integrated
upstream) and possibly get a few bugs resolved.
For C89-style software that I've seen, if it didn't compile with clang,
the software was buggy, not clang lacking. I know things may be
different with corner cases for C99 or C++, and surely some C++0x
features will require GCC, as will Fortran, Java, and thereabouts.
Best regards
--
Matthias Andree
ports committer
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
