Am 18.03.2011 15:17, schrieb Konstantin Tokarev:
17.03.2011, 20:33, "Matthias Andree":
Not necessarily. If it's a documented extension that you'd allowed (and
even by sticking to the implicit gnu89 language default of GCC) then
you'll hardly hear back anything else than "invalid, works as doc
17.03.2011, 20:33, "Matthias Andree" :
> Not necessarily. If it's a documented extension that you'd allowed (and
> even by sticking to the implicit gnu89 language default of GCC) then
> you'll hardly hear back anything else than "invalid, works as documented".
Note that Clang supports c89 and g
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:40:38AM +0100, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Matthias Andree said:
> >
> > 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
In our previous episode, Matthias Andree said:
>
> 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 cl
Am 16.03.2011 12:02, schrieb Ade Lovett:
On Mar 16, 2011, at 05:45 , Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
16.03.2011, 13:33, "Ade Lovett":
On Mar 16, 2011, at 04:39 , Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
What will happen to ports in non-clang arches (sparc64, ia64) after 9.0R?
With any luck, they will die a s
Am 17.03.2011 14:07, schrieb Konstantin Tokarev:
17.03.2011, 15:39, "Konstantin Tokarev":
16.03.2011, 11:33, "Alberto Villa";:
On Wednesday 16 March 2011 09:15:07 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
From http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html
"In addition to the language extensio
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.
17.03.2011, 15:39, "Konstantin Tokarev" :
> 16.03.2011, 11:33, "Alberto Villa" ;:
>
>> On Wednesday 16 March 2011 09:15:07 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>>> From http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html
>>>
>>> "In addition to the language extensions listed here, Clang aims to
>> supp
16.03.2011, 11:33, "Alberto Villa" :
> On Wednesday 16 March 2011 09:15:07 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>
>> From http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html
>>
>> "In addition to the language extensions listed here, Clang aims to
>
> support
>
>> a broad range of GCC extensions."
>>
>> S
On 03/16/2011 02:39 AM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:19:48AM +0100, Erwin Lansing wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:20:40PM +0300, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
13.03.2011, 01:00, "Doug Barton":
Howdy,
As many of you are no doubt already aware, much work has been underta
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:02:55AM -0500, Ade Lovett wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2011, at 05:45 , Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> > 16.03.2011, 13:33, "Ade Lovett" :
> >> On Mar 16, 2011, at 04:39 , Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> >>
> >>> What will happen to ports in non-clang arches (sparc64, ia64) after 9.
On Mar 16, 2011, at 05:45 , Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> 16.03.2011, 13:33, "Ade Lovett" :
>> On Mar 16, 2011, at 04:39 , Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
>>
>>> What will happen to ports in non-clang arches (sparc64, ia64) after 9.0R?
>>
>> With any luck, they will die a silent death and be pointed in
16.03.2011, 13:33, "Ade Lovett" :
> On Mar 16, 2011, at 04:39 , Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
>
>> What will happen to ports in non-clang arches (sparc64, ia64) after 9.0R?
>
> With any luck, they will die a silent death and be pointed in the direction
> of NetBSD that likes to look after irrelevan
On Mar 16, 2011, at 04:39 , Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> What will happen to ports in non-clang arches (sparc64, ia64) after 9.0R?
With any luck, they will die a silent death and be pointed in the direction of
NetBSD that likes to look after irrelevant architectures. i386/amd64 for
primary use,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:39:38AM +, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> > >
> > 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 wil
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:19:48AM +0100, Erwin Lansing wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:20:40PM +0300, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> >
> >
> > 13.03.2011, 01:00, "Doug Barton" :
> > > Howdy,
> > >
> > > As many of you are no doubt already aware, much work has been undertaken
> > > to make clang
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:20:40PM +0300, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>
>
> 13.03.2011, 01:00, "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
On Wednesday 16 March 2011 09:15:07 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> From http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html
>
> "In addition to the language extensions listed here, Clang aims to
support
> a broad range of GCC extensions."
>
> So GCC extensions may also be considered as missing featu
16.03.2011, 02:27, "Alberto Villa" :
> On Tuesday 15 March 2011 19:20:40 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>
>> 3. Fix Clang to compile more ports
>
> lots of problems are due to gcc-isms in software, so it's not always possible
>From http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html
"In addition to
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 19:20:40 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> 3. Fix Clang to compile more ports
lots of problems are due to gcc-isms in software, so it's not always possible
--
Alberto Villa, FreeBSD committer
http://people.FreeBSD.org/~avilla
The yankees, son, are up north.
The damnyankees ar
On Mar 15, 2011, at 14:14 , Charlie Kester wrote:
> Of course, we should definitely do that.
> But ports team should have a plan in place, in case those PR's aren't
> resolved in time.
A single, really small boot/livefs/install with no packages (half-smiley)
In all seriousness, with a change o
On Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 11:39:28 PDT Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
15.03.2011, 21:32, "Charlie Kester" :
On Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 11:20:40 PDT Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
3. Fix Clang to compile more ports
That would be my vote too, but we should probably focus on solutions the
ports team can control
15.03.2011, 21:32, "Charlie Kester" :
> On Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 11:20:40 PDT Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>
>> 3. Fix Clang to compile more ports
>
> That would be my vote too, but we should probably focus on solutions the
> ports team can control.
You can post bug reports to Clang team. maybe some o
On Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 11:20:40 PDT Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
3. Fix Clang to compile more ports
That would be my vote too, but we should probably focus on solutions the
ports team can control.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists
13.03.2011, 01:00, "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 da
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 02:00:33PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> 1. Fix all ports to compile with both gcc 4.2 (for RELENG_[78]) and clang.
I do not believe we have enough time before 9.0R to accomplish this;
especially as I understand that there is pressure within the src committer
community to sim
Hi,
> I think some option like "CLANG_SAFE" or "USE_CLANG" (just
> saying, perhaps a better name can be found) should be added [...]
I also think that it would be very useful to go the same route
as with MAKE_JOBS, i.e., ports can opt in, and in the long run opt out,
of being build with clang.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 01:05:07PM +0100, Guido Falsi wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 02:00:33PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> > 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-RELE
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 02:00:33PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> 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 loo
29 matches
Mail list logo
