I had written (2015-Oct-11):
> I'm not sure about going all the way back to FreeBSD 9 but this suggests that
> clang was for some time --and recently has been-- insufficient on its own for
> reliable(?) powerpc64 builds (2015-Feb-05). It may be best to consider
> powerpc64 omitted from the "cla
On 2014-Oct-11 Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2015, at 14:05, Piotr Kubaj > wrote:
> >
> > AFAIK if there had been such plans, they were dropped long ago. The
> > reasoning it can't be done (at least for now) is that versions 3.5.0+
> > require C++11-capable stack and that would break upgrades
On 11 Oct 2015, at 14:05, Piotr Kubaj wrote:
>
> AFAIK if there had been such plans, they were dropped long ago. The
> reasoning it can't be done (at least for now) is that versions 3.5.0+
> require C++11-capable stack and that would break upgrades from 9-STABLE
> (if the user still uses GCC, as
AFAIK if there had been such plans, they were dropped long ago. The
reasoning it can't be done (at least for now) is that versions 3.5.0+
require C++11-capable stack and that would break upgrades from 9-STABLE
(if the user still uses GCC, as is by default). So, LLVM in stable/10
will probably be up
Hello.
As of now, I have-
FreeBSD clang version 3.4.1 (tags/RELEASE_34/dot1-final 208032) 20140512
on FreeBSD 10.2-STABLE #0 r289058, I wouldn't have taken notice, if mesa
related
things didn't recently wish for llvm36 available; digging in CURRENT, I've
saw
that MFC of 3.5.0 was planed after o
Hi Rick,
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, Rick Macklem wrote:
Hi again,
Attached is a semantically equivalent patch to the one I posted a few
minutes ago, but I think this one is more readable.
Please let me know if you get it tested, rick
I have patched the 10-stable kernel on the box. Judging from t
