On Sep 10, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Brooks Davis wrote:
> .if ${COMPILER_TYPE} != "clang"
>
> I'd like to commit this in the next few days unless there are objections
> requiring a major redesign.
Due to other $LIFE happening, I just scanned the patch, but I really like it.
I'd also propose a COMPILER
On 09/11/2012 05:03 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:10:13PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>>
>> However, I think the majority of users can get by just fine using clang,
>> right now. Doug Barton even confirmed in this thread that 80% of our
>> ports already work with it!
>
> He
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
> At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports
> build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to.
I think this is a mis-representation.
Adding the requirement "your ports must work on clang" is adding a
On 12 Sep 2012, at 10:15, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
>> At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports
>> build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to.
>
> I think this is a mis-representation.
>
> Addin
On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with
> USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang?
Unfortunately it isn't that simple. We already have a statistically
significant number of ports that don't even compile wit
On 09/11/2012 11:15 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
>> At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports
>> build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to.
>
> I think this is a mis-representation.
>
> Adding the
Fwiw, I plan to fix this issue, but even if I didnt. This isnt
a problem in clang rather than in llvm asm. So it can be easily
worked around by CFLAGS+=-no-integrated-as.
Roman
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:22:44PM +0200, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
> Le Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:12:07 -0500,
> Brooks Davis
Den 12/09/2012 kl. 11.29 skrev Doug Barton :
> On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
>> So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with
>> USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang?
>
> Unfortunately it isn't that simple. We already have a statistically
>
On 12 Sep 2012, at 10:09, Doug Barton wrote:
> Also, users who actually are helping with testing clang for ports
> continue to report runtime problems, even with things that build fine.
I hope that you are encouraging maintainers of ports that don't work as
expected with clang to submit bug repo
In Makefile.inc1,
both WMAKECOMPILER_TYPE and WMAKE_COMPILER_TYPE exist.
It's maybe bug.
___
freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubs
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 04:15:20AM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
> > At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports
> > build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to.
>
> I think this is a mis-representat
On 11/09/2012 00:35, Chuck Burns wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Brooks Davis wrote:
...
For those worrying about "zomg, my system wont work?!" Remember..
This is a -current thing. If you're running bleeding edge, you have to
expect to get cut every now and then.
This is the perfect s
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 06:29:00PM -0700, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> On 2012-09-10 14:12, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > [Please confine your replies to toolch...@freebsd.org to keep the thread
> > on the most relevant list.]
> >
> > For the past several years we've been working towards migrating from
> > GC
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:43:39AM -0500, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Sep 10, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > .if ${COMPILER_TYPE} != "clang"
> >
> > I'd like to commit this in the next few days unless there are objections
> > requiring a major redesign.
>
> Due to other $LIFE happening,
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:03:43PM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
> two of the ports I maintain don't build with CLANG, yet. I
> just checked that on the wiki page [1].
To repeat myself, the ports I've listed on that page are the "big
problems". People need to look at the errorlogs URLs up at the
top
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 09:49:51PM +0900, Yamaya Takashi wrote:
> In Makefile.inc1,
> both WMAKECOMPILER_TYPE and WMAKE_COMPILER_TYPE exist.
> It's maybe bug.
It is. I'm not actually sure why it didn't result in more invocations
of gcc in my test. I'm testing a fix now.
-- Brooks
pgpKVIZxGLt7
Hello, Patrick.
You wrote 12 сентября 2012 г., 1:22:44:
PL> Well, I will not be able to run FreeBSD from scratch on my soekris :-)
Thank you for warning, I've missed this.
--
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov
___
freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org maili
On 9/12/2012 1:49 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2012, at 10:09, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Also, users who actually are helping with testing clang for ports
>> continue to report runtime problems, even with things that build fine.
>
> I hope that you are encouraging maintainers of ports that
On 9/12/2012 12:40 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> Den 12/09/2012 kl. 11.29 skrev Doug Barton :
>
>> On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
>>> So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports
>>> with USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang?
>>
>> Unfortunately
On 09/11/12 09:56, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2012-09-11 16:27, Tijl Coosemans wrote:> On 11-09-2012 16:10,
Dimitry Andric wrote:
...
Yes, maths support, specifically precision, is admittedly still one of
clang's (really llvm's) weaker points. It is currently not really a
high priority item for
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with
> USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang? This could allow
> the clang switch to proceed. Hopefully, waiting for GCC to compile just
> to install some tiny port will b
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 04:42:27PM -0500, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> On 09/11/12 09:56, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> >On 2012-09-11 16:27, Tijl Coosemans wrote:> On 11-09-2012 16:10,
> >Dimitry Andric wrote:
> >...
> >>>Yes, maths support, specifically precision, is admittedly still one of
> >>>clang's
Doug Barton writes:
> On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
>> So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with
>> USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang?
>
> Unfortunately it isn't that simple. We already have a statistically
> significant number of po
On 2012-Sep-11, 23:29, Doug Barton wrote:
> What we need to do is what I and others have been asking to do for
> years. We need to designate a modern version of gcc (no less than 4.6)
> as the official default ports compiler, and rework whatever is needed to
> support this. Fortunately, that goal i
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 08:21:31AM +0200, Pietro Cerutti wrote:
> On 2012-Sep-11, 23:29, Doug Barton wrote:
> > What we need to do is what I and others have been asking to do for
> > years. We need to designate a modern version of gcc (no less than 4.6)
> > as the official default ports compiler, a
25 matches
Mail list logo
