Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD

100% agreement with Mark here.

On 06/03/10 17:19, Mark Linimon wrote:
> I'm just catching up with this thread, so apologies if this has already
> been pointed out elsewhere.
>
> One of the things that has been discussed w/rt compilers for a while
> (not just at the devsummit) was bending our minds around separating the
> concept of "base system compiler" from "default ports compiler".  In
> -stable branches, we must and shall not do large compiler updates.  But
> ports probably need a more recent compiler (of whatever flavor) just to
> keep as many of them building as possible.  (As upstream authors switch
> to newer compilers, their ports often don't build on whatever is in our
> base).
>
> Despite my enthusiasm for the future of llvm, the reality is that even
> in the medium-term there are so many ports with hardwired assumptions
> that they are running on gcc (not to mention on linux on i386) that it
> will never be possible to fix them all.  The current paradigm is that
> as ports stop building with both base gcc, unless they are switched to
> depending on a newer gcc from ports, they'll be marked 'broken' and go
> through the deprecation cycle.
>
> Further, I remind people that "compile" and "run" and "run equally as
> well through all code-paths" are three completely separate levels of
> effort, possibly having an order of magnitude more work between each.
> We're looking at a multi-year process here, and not every single port is
> going to survive.  But again -- not all of them currently do, anwyays.
>
> mcl


-- 

	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
			-- Propellerheads

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/