On 4/6/18, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Monday, April 02, 2018 12:27:47 PM Ed Maste wrote: >> On 31 March 2018 at 14:41, Mark Linimon <lini...@lonesome.com> wrote: >> This is the most important point of this discussion: we do need to >> ensure there's good communication and coordination between teams where >> dependencies like this exist. I'll take the blame here: Dimitry asked >> me about merging the Clang update to stable/11 and I agreed that it >> was reasonable to merge sooner rather than later to have as much lead >> time as possible before the 11.2 process starts. I also assumed that >> outstanding Clang 6 issues in ports were farther along in being >> addressed. >> >> The key lesson from this discussion is that for significant commits >> and merges like this one we should make sure to always have sufficient >> advance notice. > > Is this driven by -mretpoline?
Don't think so since it requires LLD as linker. The LLVM 5 which was already part of the 11-stable has the retpoline option. See r331219. >From other side, I like to see a newer compiler sets in the recent releases, because there are lot of performance improvements and other fixes. > That is, would we not be as aggressive > with pushing for clang 6 in 11.2 if it weren't for that? I kind of feel > like we probably wouldn't and would have left it at 5 and let clang 6 be > a FreeBSD 12 thing. Was -mretpoline backported to clang 5 (I thought > there was some talk of providing patches for clang 5)? > > -- > John Baldwin > _______________________________________________ > svn-src-stable...@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-stable-11 > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "svn-src-stable-11-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
