On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:12:24 +0200
Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>
> CRYPTO_num_locks is in libcrypto so try linking with that in addition
> to libssl.
>
Now i works, thanks a lot!! Forgot to add -Xlinker /usr/lib/libcrypto.a and
-Xlinker /usr/lib/libpthread.a
Now everything works as expected.
Bytes
On 2013-05-31 15:26, Eduardo Morras wrote:
> I'm trying to compile a single big file project written in C. It
> compiled fine, without problems in my develop machine (FreeBSD 9.1
> STABLE, Clang3.2) but not on the server (FreeBSD 9.1 Release#0, Clang
> 3.1). The app uses openssl dtls and links to s
On 11 January 2013 16:49, ill...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 9 January 2013 18:50, ajtiM wrote:
>> I had FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE which was updated with freebsd-update upgrade to
>> RC-3 and RC3 with freebsd-update to 9.1 release:
>>
>> FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE #0 r243826: Tue Dec 4 06:55:39 UTC 2012
>> r...@ob
On 9 January 2013 18:50, ajtiM wrote:
> I had FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE which was updated with freebsd-update upgrade to
> RC-3 and RC3 with freebsd-update to 9.1 release:
>
> FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE #0 r243826: Tue Dec 4 06:55:39 UTC 2012
> r...@obrian.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386
>
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 04:25:14 +1100 andrew clarke
wrote:
>On Tue 2012-10-16 10:52:36 UTC-0500, Scott Bennett (benn...@cs.niu.edu) wrote:
>
>> From looking at the clang(1) man page, it is not clear to me what the
>> difference is between the -arch option and the -march= option. Would
>> someon
On Tue 2012-10-16 10:52:36 UTC-0500, Scott Bennett (benn...@cs.niu.edu) wrote:
> From looking at the clang(1) man page, it is not clear to me what the
> difference is between the -arch option and the -march= option. Would
> someone please summarize the difference(s) for me? Thanks much!
>From t
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:21:28 +0400
Артем Зуйков wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can't build anything with clang & libc++
> What am I doing wrong?
>
>
> > clang++ -stdlib=libc++ test1.cpp -o x
> In file included from test1.cpp:1:
> /usr/include/c++/v1/cstdlib:134:9: error: no member named
> 'at_quick_exit'
If it would be truly about removing GPLv3 code that hurts, replacing
libstdc++ would be first thing to do.
I assume you mean like the new libc++?
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NewC%2B%2BStack
yes. this is actually GREAT MOVE!
even if it's slower, object oriented languages are not about speed anyway.
On 25/06/2012 13:56, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>
> C++ libraries can be limiting, but... wasn't replaced.
>
> If it would be truly about removing GPLv3 code that hurts, replacing
> libstdc++ would be first thing to do.
I assume you mean like the new libc++?
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NewC%2B%2BStack
>
programming involves many of the classic trade-offs in programming: dynamic
features add flexibility, static features add speed and type checking."
My Note: please keep in mind we are talking about language used for writing
clang, a compiler tool.
So, Objective-C has disadvantage with regard
Jakub Lach mailplus.pl> writes:
>
> > I am more concerned about an aspect of the language the clang tools are
> > written in, namely the use of object-oriented paradigm of c++ (it is a
> > phony
> > paradigm, one that does not exist in nature or reality, which explains
> > the failure rate of C+
> I am more concerned about an aspect of the language the clang tools are
> written in, namely the use of object-oriented paradigm of c++ (it is a
> phony
> paradigm, one that does not exist in nature or reality, which explains
> the failure rate of C++ OO projects historically and current usage
>
Chad Perrin apotheon.com> writes:
>
> Anyway, switching from GCC to Clang has essentially nothing to do with
> the kinds of problems we increasingly see in the Linux world. In fact,
> one of the biggest problems in the Linux world is the fact that GNU
> projects have a tendency to degrade in qu
underway to make sure the base system will compile cleanly with both
Clang and GCC 4.2+, so I think you're just making up complaints here.
Someone (other than Wojciech Puchar, who would just be talking out of his
once again personal attacks from unhappy childs.
ass) correct me if I'm mistaken
Chad Perrin wrote:
Someone in this extended discussion mentioned that there are efforts
underway to make sure the base system will compile cleanly with both
Clang and GCC 4.2+, so I think you're just making up complaints here.
Someone (other than Wojciech Puchar, who would just be talking out of
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 05:50:24AM -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Snippet from Wojciech Puchar :
> >
> > I successfully predicted the fall of linux (in quality point of view)
> > years ago, then netbsd - after this and my prediction were good.
> >
> > Now i predict FreeBSD will fall within 2015 tim
force gcc build that MAYBE will work. possibly not.
My experience with NetBSD suggests you may be right there, but Linux?
After commercial support got too much about directing decisions, NetBSD
got very quickly useless.
I'll have to build a new Linux installation and see for myself!
Wa
Snippet from Wojciech Puchar :
> I successfully predicted the fall of linux (in quality point of view)
> years ago, then netbsd - after this and my prediction were good.
> Now i predict FreeBSD will fall within 2015 time frame.
> What i mean fall - that it would be better to use older version as
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
> i would recommend you to take more care about yourself, and not me.
You are not in the right position to give advice, young man.
--
chs,
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://l
21.06.2012 02:26, Wojciech Puchar пишет:
>>> the answer.
>>
>> I'll try to help out, here.
>>
>> Christer Solskogen: I think the reason that is so very important to
>> Wojciech Puchar is the fact that he is incapable of imagining:
>>
>> 1. other concerns that might apply
>>
>> 2. that things appear
the answer.
I'll try to help out, here.
Christer Solskogen: I think the reason that is so very important to
Wojciech Puchar is the fact that he is incapable of imagining:
1. other concerns that might apply
2. that things appear highly likely to change
3. that a negligible performance differe
21.06.2012 01:14, Chad Perrin пишет:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:40:56PM +0400, Евгений Лактанов wrote:
>> 20.06.2012 18:47, Mark Felder пишет:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:43:14 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
>>> wrote:
[attribution lost by Wojciech Puchar and I'm too lazy to check]
> Why not mak
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:40:56PM +0400, Евгений Лактанов wrote:
> 20.06.2012 18:47, Mark Felder пишет:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:43:14 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
> > wrote:
> >> [attribution lost by Wojciech Puchar and I'm too lazy to check]
> >>>
> >>> Why not make FreeBSD better for everyone by c
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:07:09PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > wrote:
> >>Will i be able to compile FreeBSD base system with gcc after some time?
> >>not sure.
> >
> >Why is that so important for you?
> if you would read even less than carefully the topic you will get
> the answer.
I'll try
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Will i be able to compile FreeBSD base system with gcc after some time?
>>> not sure.
>>
>>
>> Why is that so important for you?
>
> if you would read even less than carefully the topic you will get the
> answer.
No, I do
wrote:
Will i be able to compile FreeBSD base system with gcc after some time?
not sure.
Why is that so important for you?
if you would read even less than carefully the topic you will get the
answer.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
> Will i be able to compile FreeBSD base system with gcc after some time?
> not sure.
Why is that so important for you?
--
chs,
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd
I wish that or something like that were true, but pcc is dead even in
OpenBSD packages/ports. There was just some discussion on misc@
I am hoping for the day gcc is only used on Linux and many free compilers
are used everywhere else.
me too. but first we need to have Free compiler that would be
> Besides, NetBSD and OpenBSD has already selected and using pcc now. And
> they are fine with that one.
I wish that or something like that were true, but pcc is dead even in
OpenBSD packages/ports. There was just some discussion on misc@
I am hoping for the day gcc is only used on Linux and ma
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 02:16:43PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >speed estimates.
>
> there are a difference between speed estimate and actual speed - and
> i talk about the latter only.
You're talking about poorly managed benchmarks that are imprecise and
prone to fluctuation, applying only to
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:14:09PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >
> >And why you think it's not better then gcc?
>
> because - as you already should know - test shows otherwise.
You just ignored everything Volodymyr Kostyrko said about the other
factors that are also important for a compiler b
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:09:23AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >1. gcc will still be available through the ports system.
>
> As well as clang is available in ports. not an argument.
No, it's not an argument all by itself. It's *part* of an argument.
> >
> >2. The move to clang/llvm as a de
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 02:02:35PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>still not stopped personal attacks (last part of last sentence) but lets
> >>forget.
> >
> >Fact; that was NOT a personal attack. Your entire line of reasoning so far
> >has been about -your- preferences, and things as you see th
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 06:46:20AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >
> >>How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds?
> >
> >what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree?
>
> what is a problem as clang is in the ports tree?
I can think of at least one big reason: t
20.06.2012 18:47, Mark Felder пишет:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:43:14 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
> wrote:
>
>>> Why not make FreeBSD better for everyone by cooperating with the
>>> CLANG project?
>>
>> because we already have great compiler - GCC. In spite of using GPL
>> licence.
>
> GCC performs well,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
>>> still not stopped personal attacks (last part of last sentence) but lets
>>> forget.
>>
>>
>> Fact; that was NOT a personal attack. Your entire line of reasoning so
>> far
>> has been about -your- preferences, and things as you see them,
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:43:14 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
Why not make FreeBSD better for everyone by cooperating with the CLANG
project?
because we already have great compiler - GCC. In spite of using GPL
licence.
GCC performs well, but it is a very messy undocumented codebase which
Why not make FreeBSD better for everyone by cooperating with the CLANG
project?
because we already have great compiler - GCC. In spite of using GPL
licence.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/free
Wojciech,
Why not make FreeBSD better for everyone by cooperating with the CLANG
project?
1. Find simple programs with severe performance issues
2. Report to the CLANG developers
3. They fix, tweak, and tune the compiler
4. FreeBSD imports latest release
5. Everybody wins
speed estimates.
there are a difference between speed estimate and actual speed - and i
talk about the latter only.
Besides, NetBSD and OpenBSD has already selected and using pcc now. And they
are fine with that one.
their problem.
___
freebsd-que
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
And why you think it's not better then gcc?
because - as you already should know - test shows otherwise.
Test show only that clang-compiled binaries are still subject for
improvement. It doesn't show how strict and clear this binary is.
As well as FreeBSD running p
still not stopped personal attacks (last part of last sentence) but lets
forget.
Fact; that was NOT a personal attack. Your entire line of reasoning so far
has been about -your- preferences, and things as you see them, for _your_
What is specifically my preference?
1) Your opinion about th
[ Semi-apologies to all for being blunt, and possibly somewhat offensive. ]
[ More tactful approaches have been shown to be ineffective, and Wojceich ]
[ has a demonstrated propensity to blather on as though he knows more ]
[ about everything than anyone else.
And why you think it's not better then gcc?
because - as you already should know - test shows otherwise.
As well as FreeBSD running predictable with gcc anyway.
Still theory and ideology.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.fr
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
5. clang/llvm is more modular than gcc, although there are plans for
gcc to become as modular, it will take time.
Doesn't matter how it is written, but how it performs.
That's a hard one. I remember an error in gcc loop optimizer which makes
gcc produce SSE2 opcodes fo
1. gcc will still be available through the ports system.
As well as clang is available in ports. not an argument.
2. The move to clang/llvm as a default compiler will reduce the amount
of GPL code in the base system, eventually reducing distribution
issues (especially for 3rd parties).
true.
The answer is:
1. gcc will still be available through the ports system.
2. The move to clang/llvm as a default compiler will reduce the amount
of GPL code in the base system, eventually reducing distribution
issues (especially for 3rd parties).
3. clang/llvm provides better error and warning messa
Yes Wojciech, I can attempt an answer for you. Pay attention, this gets very
complex.
The decision to move to Clang was motivated by what is best for the project,
and not what is best for Wojciech.
still not stopped personal attacks (last part of last sentence) but lets
forget.
So please g
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Wojciech Puchar <
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
>
> OK? Can you just answer that simple question clearly?
>
Yes Wojciech, I can attempt an answer for you. Pay attention, this gets
very complex.
The decision to move to Clang was motivated by what is best
long term goals. Eliminating, or at least not being dependent on a GNU
toolchain. GPL v3 brings with it a whole host problems such as:
As you already know i don't like GPL very much. As i already said for me
GNU is computer communism.
But like or not like, i don't prefer my likeness above f
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Wojciech Puchar <
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
> Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc. Is that in
>> dispute or something? Or is this just repetition in case we
>> didn't hear you the first time?
>>
>
> just yesterday i've heard lots
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
>> Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc. Is that in
>> dispute or something? Or is this just repetition in case we
>> didn't hear you the first time?
>
>
> just yesterday i've heard lots of otherwise claim.
>
>
>>
>> Try
Hi,
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 11:46:20 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >> How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds?
> >
> > what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree?
>
> what is a problem as clang is in the ports tree?
for the port? It does not make a difference.
Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc. Is that in dispute or
something? Or is this just repetition in case we
didn't hear you the first time?
just yesterday i've heard lots of otherwise claim.
Try thinking of the transition as a step back to take many steps forward.
Wha
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Wojciech Puchar <
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
> i tested your test program, and in that case, contrary to testing common
> unix programs, difference is far higher showing gcc superiority.
>
> i did this test with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang and FreeBSD 9 s
How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds?
what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree?
what is a problem as clang is in the ports tree?
the problem is that these compilers are not 100% compatible and soon if
clang will be default it will be not just easy
Hi,
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 11:26:13 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds?
what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree?
Erich
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://list
Fixed now in stable/9.
r233468 | marius | 2012-03-25 11:24:42 -0500 (Sun, 25 Mar 2012) | 6 lines
MFC: r233105
Declare some variables static in order to reduce the object size and
redo r232822 (MFC'ed to stable/9 in r232962)
Success! boot2 btx linked with 3 bytes available, rather than being 29 bytes
too large.
kernel: ver=1.02 size=690 load=9000 entry=9010 map=16M pgctl=1:1
client: fmt=bin size=156d text=0 data=0 bss=0 entry=0
output: fmt=bin size=1dfd text=200 data=1bfd org=0 entry=0
3 bytes available
--
James.
__
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Dennis Glatting wrote:
> I csup RELENG_9 last night and compiled /usr/src and clang is
> erroring out:
Hi Dennis. I get the same error and am testing a correction right
now. The problem is related to improvements to boot2 in r233374
(MFC of r232570 an
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Artifex Maximus wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > Absolutely not a flame war but would like to switch to clang in a
> > project. Project uses ncurses. gcc works well but the executable fails
> > when compiled other than -O0. Then I think I should
Artifex Maximus wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Absolutely not a flame war but would like to switch to clang in a
> project. Project uses ncurses. gcc works well but the executable fails
> when compiled other than -O0. Then I think I should change to clang
> which will becomes the default compiler in FreeBSD.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Joshua Isom wrote:
> I know that build cluster lists some ports that have problems with clang,
> but it doesn't say if they're tested or not. I set up a clang jail to test
> out things before switching to clang for general use. When I try running
> mencoder to en
On 02/02/2012 07:41, Joshua Isom wrote:
> I know that build cluster lists some ports that have problems with
> clang, but it doesn't say if they're tested or not. I set up a clang
> jail to test out things before switching to clang for general use. When
> I try running mencoder to encode a file t
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:41:03 -0600
Joshua Isom wrote:
> I know that build cluster lists some ports that have problems with
> clang, but it doesn't say if they're tested or not. I set up a clang
> jail to test out things before switching to clang for general use.
> When I try running mencoder t
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 08:53:36AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> On 01/23/12 07:26, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 09:33:02PM +0100, Roland Smith wrote:
> >> PCC is only a C compiler, and there is some C++ code (e.g. groff) in the
> >> base
> >> system. The FreeBSD port is marked as i386
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 08:54:32AM +, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 22/01/2012 22:53, Da Rock wrote:
> > What part is that? I thought it had to be all c...
>
> Not at all. clang and llvm are themselves written in C++.
>
> However, it's groff that Roland mentioned as the canonical example of
> C
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:01 PM, wrote:
> kpn...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> > Lattice C
>
> Later bought out by Microsoft IIRC
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe,
kpn...@pobox.com wrote:
> Lattice C
Later bought out by Microsoft IIRC
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
On 22/01/2012 22:53, Da Rock wrote:
> What part is that? I thought it had to be all c...
Not at all. clang and llvm are themselves written in C++.
However, it's groff that Roland mentioned as the canonical example of
C++ in base.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.P
On 01/23/12 07:26, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 09:33:02PM +0100, Roland Smith wrote:
PCC is only a C compiler, and there is some C++ code (e.g. groff) in the base
system. The FreeBSD port is marked as i386 and amd64 only, even though other
architectures seem to be there in the PCC
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 09:33:02PM +0100, Roland Smith wrote:
>
> PCC is only a C compiler, and there is some C++ code (e.g. groff) in the base
> system. The FreeBSD port is marked as i386 and amd64 only, even though other
> architectures seem to be there in the PCC source.
I had somehow forgotte
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 05:37:48AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
> PCC (Portable C Compiler), meanwhile, spent many years essentially unused
PCC is only a C compiler, and there is some C++ code (e.g. groff) in the base
system. The FreeBSD port is marked as i386 and amd64 only, even though other
archi
Quoth Robert Bonomi on Sunday, 22 January 2012:
> Da Rock wrote:
>
> > I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew
> > out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were
> > borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well,
> >
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 01:13:49AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> On 01/23/12 00:38, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> >Da Rock wrote:
> >
> >>I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew
> >>out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were
> >>borland and gcc. The f
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:55:18PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> On 01/22/12 22:37, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> >PCC (Portable C Compiler), meanwhile, spent many years essentially unused
> >except in some of the dustier corners of Unix user communities before
> >being actively developed again as more and mo
On Jan 22, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Eric Masson wrote:
> kpn...@pobox.com writes:
>
> Hi,
>
>> Lattice C - targeted MS-DOS, AmigaOS, probably others. Had a 32-bit int
>> on the Amiga, where Manx had a 16-bit int. When Commodore ported BSD sockets
>> to the Amiga they had to change all the ints to long
kpn...@pobox.com writes:
Hi,
> Lattice C - targeted MS-DOS, AmigaOS, probably others. Had a 32-bit int
> on the Amiga, where Manx had a 16-bit int. When Commodore ported BSD sockets
> to the Amiga they had to change all the ints to longs because of this. Was
> renamed "SAS/C" towards the end of t
Hi,
Reference:
> From: Da Rock
> Reply-to: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:13:49 +1000
> Message-id: <4f1c27ad.9070...@herveybayaustralia.com.au>
Da Rock wrote:
> On 01/23/12 00:38, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> > Da Rock wrote:
> >
> >> I personally
On Jan 22, 2012, at 6:38 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> Da Rock wrote:
>
>> I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew
>> out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were
>> borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well,
On 01/23/12 00:38, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Da Rock wrote:
I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew
out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were
borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well,
everything else.
"Once upo
Da Rock wrote:
> I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew
> out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were
> borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well,
> everything else.
"Once upon a time", there were _many_ al
On 01/22/12 22:37, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:06:04PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
On 01/22/12 17:45, Chad Perrin wrote:
A couple years ago, it looked like a race between PCC and TenDRA, but
Clang seemed to just come out of nowhere and steal all the attention.
All three of them had
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 05:37:48AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
>
> There has been some talk of it being the GCC replacement for OpenBSD
> and maybe even NetBSD, though I seem to recall Theo de Raadt doesn't
> consider replacing GCC a very urgent requirement right now (which might
> be part of the re
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:06:04PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> On 01/22/12 17:45, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> >A couple years ago, it looked like a race between PCC and TenDRA, but
> >Clang seemed to just come out of nowhere and steal all the attention.
> >All three of them had a lot to recommend them, bu
On 22/01/2012 11:50, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> While on the subject of Clang, is this compiler only for C, C++ and
> Objective-C?
Correct. Clang is the LLVM front-end for that family of languages.
> What about Ada and Fortran? Does one need GCC for that? Dragonlace
> for Ada?
There are other LLVM
While on the subject of Clang, is this compiler only for C, C++ and Objective-C?
What about Ada and Fortran? Does one need GCC for that? Dragonlace for Ada?
I believe some of the ports require GCC. Many of these ports are developed
primarily for Linux and subsequently ported to FreeBSD ports
On 01/22/12 17:45, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 05:09:52PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
On 01/22/12 17:02, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 03:43:13PM +, RW wrote:
I was just wondering what would have happened if Apple hadn't backed
clang/LLVM as BSD licensed projects. Was
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 05:09:52PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> On 01/22/12 17:02, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 03:43:13PM +, RW wrote:
> >>I was just wondering what would have happened if Apple hadn't backed
> >>clang/LLVM as BSD licensed projects. Was there a plan B (other than
>
On 01/22/12 17:02, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 03:43:13PM +, RW wrote:
I was just wondering what would have happened if Apple hadn't backed
clang/LLVM as BSD licensed projects. Was there a plan B (other than
gcc 4.2.1) or did Apple save the *BSD world?
The backup plan was pro
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 03:43:13PM +, RW wrote:
>
> I was just wondering what would have happened if Apple hadn't backed
> clang/LLVM as BSD licensed projects. Was there a plan B (other than
> gcc 4.2.1) or did Apple save the *BSD world?
The backup plan was probably PCC.
--
Chad Perrin [ o
On 01/22/12 02:39, David Jackson wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Da Rock<
freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au> wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of hoorays and pats on the back and a general
feeling satisfaction in being able to use clang to compile FreeBSD and
ports. The only reas
On 21/01/2012 17:47, Raimund Steger wrote:
> On 01/21/12 14:35, RW wrote:
>> [...]
>> It is that. I don't know the details, but GPLv3 is sufficiently more
>> viral that recent gcc versions can't be used as the base system
>> compiler. We're currently stuck with a version from 2007.
>
> Sorry if th
On 01/21/12 14:35, RW wrote:
[...]
It is that. I don't know the details, but GPLv3 is sufficiently more
viral that recent gcc versions can't be used as the base system
compiler. We're currently stuck with a version from 2007.
Sorry if this has been asked before, but it makes me wonder, what are
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Da Rock <
freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au> wrote:
> I've been seeing a lot of hoorays and pats on the back and a general
> feeling satisfaction in being able to use clang to compile FreeBSD and
> ports. The only reason I can see from searching is a need
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:35:06 +
RW wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:11:18 +1000
> Da Rock wrote:
>
> > Even under GPL anything built using gcc can be licensed as you like,
> > so I doubt it could be that.
>
> It is that. I don't know the details, but GPLv3 is sufficiently more
> viral that re
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:11:18 +1000
Da Rock wrote:
> I've been seeing a lot of hoorays and pats on the back and a general
> feeling satisfaction in being able to use clang to compile FreeBSD
> and ports. The only reason I can see from searching is a need to get
> away from gcc (which is tried and
On 21/01/2012 12:11, Da Rock wrote:
> I've been seeing a lot of hoorays and pats on the back and a general
> feeling satisfaction in being able to use clang to compile FreeBSD and
> ports. The only reason I can see from searching is a need to get away
> from gcc (which is tried and tested since the
98 matches
Mail list logo
