On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:21:56PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:50:03PM +0800, Martin Wilke wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > As we all know FreeBSD 10 brings a new compiler along, and for that we need > > to get ports on the right > > track. I have done several exp-runs on the current src and we still have a > > lot of fallouts. We > > would like to ask you to have a look [1] at the failed ports and help to > > fix them. We will start this week > > an i386 exp-run to see how the status is. > > > > Thanks for your time. > > > > - Martin on behalf of portmgr > > > > [1]http://pointyhat-west.isc.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-10-exp-latest/ > > Didn't a sort of consensus when switching to clang for base was > discussed, was that ports would start use a port-provided version of gcc > ? The adoption of the ports gcc was stalled due to the unability to make > exp-runs, AFAIK. > > What you are proposing is de-facto forking the whole open-source code > base. This cannot work, and in fact steals the FreeBSD resources for > something which has absolutely no relevance for FreeBSD project. > > Ports should not be forced to use clang, either a ports gcc work > should be finished, or cc in HEAD switched back to gcc. This is > de-facto blocker for the 10.0.
having a "ports compiler" means having a full toolchain for ports, which has lots of collision with the toolchain in base system. As far as I know, there was no consensus at all, but some of us are working on a ports toolchain to see how it goes. All the problem (most at least) we find with clang from base are the same we will have to fight with with recent gcc, plus recent gcc brings recent binutils which will give us even more headache (the same we will have to face one day with mclinked). We are close to have the full ports tree working working on 10 may that be by directly support clang or using the USE_GCC macros allowing to choose a gcc from ports if needed. regards, Bapt
pgphpU58LMq_z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
