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
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
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
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
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
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
