On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
> hi,
>
> ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we aim to
> import
> into HEAD in roughly a week. We would like the initial import to be as
> painless
> as possible and therefore we ask you to test ClangBSD to assur
Hi,
I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
in the near future (days, not weeks).
clang/LLVM is a C/C++/ObjC compiler (framework) which aims to possibly
replace gcc. It is BSDL-like licensed. The sources are ~45MB (the
svn checkout is 97MB). Clang/LLVM is written in C++.
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:55:39PM -0700, Xin LI wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi,
>
> I just found that if I disable "AES NI" in BIOS setting, FreeBSD would
> be able to detect it on boot with:
>
> Features2=0x29ee3ff,DCA,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,POPCNT,AESNI>
>
> However
According to Roman Divacky:
> So please share your support or resistance to the idea of importing clang.
Full support from me (but that will not be a surprise ;-))
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- robe...@keltia.freenix.fr
In memoriam to Ondine : http://ondine.keltia.net/
On 05/31/10 02:25, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010, Ivan Voras wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't SU+J be visible in the output of "mount" somehow? I've just
>> enabled it on a root file system of a machine and while tunefs and
>> dumpfs report both soft-updates and SUJ are enabled (after reboot),
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:03:17AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
> >> hi,
> >>
> >> ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we
> >> aim to import into HEAD i
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:56:17PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:03:17AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> > On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
> > >> hi,
> > >>
> > >> ClangBSD was updated
On May 31, 2010, at 3:56 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>
> My personal opinion is that pushing the import now at the present state
> of clang makes a disservice to FreeBSD, and possible clang. Why not keep
> the glue on the branch as it is ? Motivated testers willing to help
> definitely can checkout
On May 31, 2010, at 3:08 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 05/31/10 02:25, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 May 2010, Ivan Voras wrote:
>>
>>> Shouldn't SU+J be visible in the output of "mount" somehow? I've just
>>> enabled it on a root file system of a machine and while tunefs and
>>> dumpfs report
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:24:52PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:56:17PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:03:17AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> > > On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > > > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +020
2010/5/31 Kostik Belousov :
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:03:17AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
>> On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
>> >> hi,
>> >>
>> >> ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:54:29PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2010/5/31 Kostik Belousov :
> > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:03:17AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> >> On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >> > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
> >> >> hi,
> >>
2010/5/31 Roman Divacky :
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:54:29PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2010/5/31 Kostik Belousov :
>> > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:03:17AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
>> >> On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman
If I understand the build process correctly, it should be possible to
have both compilers in base for some (presumably short) period of
time... then just have which one you use be a configuration option,
which should give LLVM/clang some additional exposure, without the
obvious risks of a complete
> > there are no known clang bugs (at least known to me) related to FreeBSD
> >
> > in other words - at this point you can compile FreeBSD with clang (both
> > in the version in clangbsd) and it "works" (for people who tested it)
> > on amd64 and i386
>
> I don't mean about FreeBSD, but about CLAN
> > people are already experimenting with clang installed from ports,
> > with gcc4.{3,4,5} from ports etc. by not importing clang we can
> > maybe delay this a little but it's coming anyway.
> I am pretty much fine and happy with people experimenting with clang
> or any other compilers from ports,
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
>> > people are already experimenting with clang installed from ports,
>> > with gcc4.{3,4,5} from ports etc. by not importing clang we can
>> > maybe delay this a little but it's coming anyway.
>> I am pretty much fine and happy with people ex
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 06:55:17AM -0500, Astrodog wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
> >> > people are already experimenting with clang installed from ports,
> >> > with gcc4.{3,4,5} from ports etc. by not importing clang we can
> >> > maybe delay this a little but it'
On Mon, 31 May 2010 06:11:32 -0500
Astrodog wrote:
> If I understand the build process correctly, it should be possible to
> have both compilers in base for some (presumably short) period of
> time... then just have which one you use be a configuration option,
> which should give LLVM/clang some
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
(...)
> From what it was claimed, even without the import, users can install
> whatever compiler from ports, set CC and start the build. Essentially,
> the import blesses the clang and its current state as ready for wide use.
>
Not necessari
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>
> See, there is no objection to the idea that clang can and may eventually
> displace gcc in the base. This is not the subject of the thread.
>
> The question is whether it is beneficial for FreeBSD to import
> infrastructure to ease the cl
on 29/05/2010 10:47 Andrew Reilly said the following:
> Just to prefix with my config: FreeBSD duncan.reilly.home 9.0-CURRENT FreeBSD
> 9.0-CURRENT #7: Sat May 29 11:20:54 EST 2010
> r...@duncan.reilly.home:/nb/obj/nb/src/sys/DUNCAN amd64 Current source tree
> was csupped about half an hour ago.
>
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Scott Long wrote:
On May 31, 2010, at 3:56 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
My personal opinion is that pushing the import now at the present state of
clang makes a disservice to FreeBSD, and possible clang. Why not keep the
glue on the branch as it is ? Motivated testers wil
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 02:49:35AM -0500, Brandon Gooch wrote:
>
> I'm running on a "full" ClangBSD system (world and kernel), and I've
> had no issues for the past couple of days. I've had the machine
> working nearly constantly -- building new and updating installed
> ports, running several ezja
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Ollivier Robert
wrote:
> According to Roman Divacky:
>> So please share your support or resistance to the idea of importing clang.
>
> Full support from me (but that will not be a surprise ;-))
>
> --
> Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- robe...@k
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:52:48AM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
> in the near future (days, not weeks).
>
> clang/LLVM is a C/C++/ObjC compiler (framework) which aims to possibly
> replace gcc. It is BSDL-like licensed. Th
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Robert Watson wrote:
I think Kostik's question here is legitimate: clang maturity changes over
time. The earlier we adopt it, the sooner we get the advantages of clang --
but we also end up being the people who fault in more of the hard-to-diagnose
compiler bugs. Since
On 2010-05-31 16:49, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> So, what exactly should we expect, if anything, to break? :)
>
> Did you build and install new boot code? ISTR that clang
> can't compile src/sys/boot/i386/boot0 to the required
> 512 bytes.
No, boot0 is written in assembly, and run through the regula
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 05:07:44PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2010-05-31 16:49, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >> So, what exactly should we expect, if anything, to break? :)
> >
> > Did you build and install new boot code? ISTR that clang
> > can't compile src/sys/boot/i386/boot0 to the required
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 07:57:49AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:52:48AM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
> > in the near future (days, not weeks).
> >
> > clang/LLVM is a C/C++/ObjC compiler (fr
On 2010-05-31 17:18, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Doesn't this imply that clang/llvm isn't quite ready for deployment.
> Being able to boot a complete clang/llvm compiled FreeBSD system
> would seem to be critical.
You can boot it just fine, only the boot2 part is compiled with gcc, for
now. Clang can su
On 5/31/2010 3:52 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
Clang can compile all of FreeBSD on i386/amd64 including world and booting
kernel. Other architectures that are close to working are MIPS, PowerPC
and ARM. We have a branch (clangbsd-import) that just includes clang/LLVM
sources and the build infrastruct
> Doesn't this imply that clang/llvm isn't quite ready for deployment.
> Being able to boot a complete clang/llvm compiled FreeBSD system
> would seem to be critical.
This is why clang would be turned off by default. This import is just
making it easier to test the clangbsd branch. I'm all for thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 31/05/2010 16:03:07, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> Is clangBSD able to support all our architectures? Does it
> cross build for powerpc, mips, etc? Has it made a ports run
> and does it successfully build and run most of our ports on
> Tier-1 archs, and
On Mon, 31 May 2010 09:52:48 +0200 Roman Divacky wrote:
>
> I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
> in the near future (days, not weeks).
>
> clang/LLVM is a C/C++/ObjC compiler (framework) which aims to possibly
> replace gcc. It is BSDL-like licensed. The sources a
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:14:09AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 09:52:48 +0200 Roman Divacky
> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
> > in the near future (days, not weeks).
> >
> > clang/LLVM is a C/C++/ObjC compiler (framework) wh
On Mon, 31 May 2010 18:53:18 +0300, Mike Jakubik
wrote:
What about the thousands of ports? Also, have there been any tests done
to compare the performance of the compiled binaries vs gcc?
This import is in no way directly related to ports. Somehow people
have this weird idea that clang is rep
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 02:49:35AM -0500, Brandon Gooch wrote:
>>
>> I'm running on a "full" ClangBSD system (world and kernel), and I've
>> had no issues for the past couple of days. I've had the machine
>> working nearly constantly -- buildin
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Mike Jakubik <
mike.jaku...@intertainservices.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/2010 3:52 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
>
>> Clang can compile all of FreeBSD on i386/amd64 including world and booting
>> kernel. Other architectures that are close to working are MIPS, PowerPC
>> and
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 02:49 -0500, Brandon Gooch wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we aim to
> > import
> > into HEAD in roughly a week. We would like the initial import to be as
> > pai
On 2010-05-31 19:44, Alexandre "Sunny" Kovalenko wrote:
> What is the good way to do installworld from CURRENT-snapshot to
> ClangBSD? Half way through some shared object (run-time loader?) gets
> overwritten and it is all signal 11 from there on.
Hi Alexandre,
A fix for this has already been app
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
> in the near future (days, not weeks).
>
> clang/LLVM is a C/C++/ObjC compiler (framework) which aims to possibly
> replace gcc. It is BSDL-like licensed. The sources
In message: <20100531161713.ga60...@freebsd.org>
Roman Divacky writes:
: On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:14:09AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
: > On Mon, 31 May 2010 09:52:48 +0200 Roman Divacky
wrote:
: > >
: > > I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
: > > in th
On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:33:18 MDT "M. Warner Losh" wrote:
>
> : > It is clear that not everyone has the same view of what the
> : > acceptance criteria might be so publishing it would help
> : > people understand what to expect.
> :
> : nothing changes for the ports, there's an ongoing project t
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:14:09AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 09:52:48 +0200 Roman Divacky
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
>> > in the near future (days, not weeks)
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:33 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <20100531161713.ga60...@freebsd.org>
[...]
> There's more context here too. To improve the support of various
> architectures, we're planning on doing two things. First, we're
> updating binutils to the latest gplv2 version.
On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:35:33 -0700
Garrett Cooper wrote:
> This in and of itself is an interesting prospect. Why would happen if
> one could drop in icc for instance :) (I realize that it's basically
> gcc-compatible, but can this be done today without a lot of rework and
> effort)?
It used to p
Den 29/05/2010 kl. 15.02 skrev Roman Divacky:
> ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we aim to
> import
> into HEAD in roughly a week. We would like the initial import to be as
> painless
> as possible and therefore we ask you to test ClangBSD to assure that the
> r
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 20:10 +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2010-05-31 19:44, Alexandre "Sunny" Kovalenko wrote:
> > What is the good way to do installworld from CURRENT-snapshot to
> > ClangBSD? Half way through some shared object (run-time loader?) gets
> > overwritten and it is all signal 11 f
On Mon, 31 May 2010 08:18:42 -0700
Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 05:07:44PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> > On 2010-05-31 16:49, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > >> So, what exactly should we expect, if anything, to break? :)
> > >
> > > Did you build and install new boot code? ISTR that
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:33:18 MDT "M. Warner Losh" wrote:
> >
>
...
>
> Can't speak for others but I am very appreciative of all the
> work put in enthusiastically by Roman and others to get clang
> into FreeBSD. Exciting to have a real alt
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 15:02 +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
> hi,
>
> ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we aim to
> import
> into HEAD in roughly a week. We would like the initial import to be as
> painless
> as possible and therefore we ask you to test ClangBSD to ass
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
>> > there are no known clang bugs (at least known to me) related to FreeBSD
>> >
>> > in other words - at this point you can compile FreeBSD with clang (both
>> > in the version in clangbsd) and it "works" (for people who tested it)
>> > on am
Matthew Seaman wrote:
Presumably the import of clang to the base does
not mean the immediate removal of gcc.
Of course not.
I'm not part of core and don't know what they
may have discussed, but I went through some hoops
to replace 'tar' and 'cpio' in the base system
and have some idea what app
Before the developers summit at BSDCan a small group of developers and
industry partners held a summit on toolchain issues. The agenda along
with a number of slide sets appears on the wiki at:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/201005ToolchainSummit
The primary focus of the summit was our increasingly ob
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 03:52:27PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> Matthew Seaman wrote:
>> Presumably the import of clang to the base does
>> not mean the immediate removal of gcc.
>
> Of course not.
>
> I'm not part of core and don't know what they
> may have discussed, but I went through some hoo
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> I personally would much rather have the glue in place to switch
> between compilers and have things default to the base version of gcc
> than just magically switch the compiler over to clang.
>
>From all the threads I've read on this subje
Scott Long wrote:
> Sounds like you're inviting the discussion right now. I'll start =-)
>
> 1. I hate gcc with the burning heat of a million suns. It's not a tool, it's
> a political weapon wielded by the FSF and their acolytes. It's also a crummy
> piece of software that has been "good enough
On 06/01/10 09:25, James R. Van Artsdalen wrote:
[snip interesting history]
I do suggest modifying the FreeBSD build process so that uname -a shows
the compiler and its version for both the kernel and userland.
Reading through this discussion, I wanted to draw attention to this
footnote in Ja
On 05/31/10 17:46, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
On 06/01/10 09:25, James R. Van Artsdalen wrote:
[snip interesting history]
I do suggest modifying the FreeBSD build process so that uname -a shows
the compiler and its version for both the kernel and userland.
Reading through this discussion, I want
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 05/31/10 17:46, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
>>
>> On 06/01/10 09:25, James R. Van Artsdalen wrote:
>> [snip interesting history]
>>
>>> I do suggest modifying the FreeBSD build process so that uname -a shows
>>> the compiler and its version for
On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:30:04 +0300
Andriy Gapon wrote:
> Have you been playing with clang or other alternative compilers?
I have them all installed, but none are used by the build
process. My make.conf is relatively clean.
> If not, then I think that it's your hardware.
I did too at first. C
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:30:04 +0300
> Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>> Have you been playing with clang or other alternative compilers?
>
> I have them all installed, but none are used by the build
> process. My make.conf is relatively clean.
What
On Mon, 31 May 2010 21:17:41 -0700
Garrett Cooper wrote:
> What _is_ your make.conf though?
Just this:
#CC=clang
CFLAGS+=-g
CXXFLAGS+=-g
KERNCONF=DUNCAN
NO_LPR=YES
NO_SENDMAIL=YES
WITH_GTK2=yes
WITH_CUPS=yes
WITH_GECKO=libxul
#WITH_DEBUG=yes
A4=yes
QT4_OPTIONS=CUPS NAS QGTKSTYLE
PORTSDIR=/nb/
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 21:17:41 -0700
> Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
>> What _is_ your make.conf though?
>
> Just this:
>
> #CC=clang
> CFLAGS+=-g
> CXXFLAGS+=-g
> KERNCONF=DUNCAN
>
> NO_LPR=YES
> NO_SENDMAIL=YES
> WITH_GTK2=yes
> WITH_CUPS=yes
> WI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:01:15 +0100
Matthew Seaman wrote:
> Is it really such a bad thing to have gcc as a build-dependency
> for various ported applications?
There are already ports that have gcc-4.4.4 as a dependency, and
a few that still require g
Hi Garrett,
On Mon, 31 May 2010 21:36:23 -0700
Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Ok... there appear to be some interesting bits here, but I'm
> curious... when was the last time that you did a build with clang, and
> did you properly clean out /usr/obj, etc since your last compile?
I don't think that I e
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 02:53:22PM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:01:15 +0100
> Matthew Seaman wrote:
>
> > Is it really such a bad thing to have gcc as a build-dependency
> > for various ported applications?
>
> There are already ports that have gcc-4.4.4 as a dependenc
In message:
Garrett Cooper writes:
: On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:33 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <20100531161713.ga60...@freebsd.org>
:
: [...]
:
: > There's more context here too. To improve the support of various
: > architectures, we're planning on doing two things.
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 11:48 AM, datastream datastream.freecity
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/26/10 09:51, Kostik Belousov wrote:
I did a quick glance over the driver, try this
70 matches
Mail list logo
