On Fri, 10 May 2013, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On May 10, 2013, at 18:59, Mikhail T. <mi+t...@aldan.algebra.com> wrote: >> Would it be too much work to extend the port-installed compilers the >> same way gcc-4.2.1 in the base is extended? May be not for gcc4[89], >> which are complete rewrites, but for 4.[4-7]? If not too difficult, >> should it be done? > > In my opinion, this is a fruitless direction. Neither upstream gcc, nor > upstream clang will ever accept an option called "-fformat-extensions", > which enables FreeBSD kernel-specific format extensions (which might > also change in the future, so you do not really gain anything). > > I think the best solution is to get rid of all non-standard printf > format specifiers in the kernel, and use custom formatters for our > specialized needs. For replacing the %b specifier, for example, we > could use NetBSD's snprintb() (see > <http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?snprintb+3+NetBSD-current>). > > Getting rid of non-standard extensions in general is really the way to > go. This would enable compiling with any standards-compliant compiler, > even commercial ones.
Amen. Gerald _______________________________________________ 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"
