On 06/12/10 08:10, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message:<4C1315F9.6000300_at_FreeBSD.org> > Doug Barton<dougb_at_freebsd.org> writes: > : On 06/11/10 14:18, M. Warner Losh wrote: > :> "This" is building the proper set of tools for the target. It is easy > :> to do, and only a couple lines of Makefile foo in Makefile.inc1 > :> instead of in bsd.own.mk. It is a fairly natural consequence of the > :> tbemd stuff I have been working on and have started merging. > :> > :> The consequences today are that you build some extra tools that are > :> only needed to build clang when in fact you aren't really going to be > :> building clang. The "cost" is however long it takes to do this on the > :> platform you are building on. This can range from a minute or two to > :> tens of minutes depending on the power of your build system. > : > : Ok, obviously I'm dense because I didn't understand an answer to my > : question anywhere in there. :) So let me try again. Why are we not > : optimizing for the common case, where the world is built on the system > : it's going to run on, which means that WITHOUT_CLANG can easily mean > : exactly that? > > Because if we optimize for that case, we break the other cases. > Broken trumps fast, so we always build the clang tools. > > The reason it is broke is that the default for clang varies between > architectures, which makes the usual tests for MK_CLANG not work for > the bootstrap tools phase. Sorry, still dense here. Can you point to code where simply testing for MK_CLANG won't work? Doug -- ... 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/Received on Sat Jun 12 2010 - 18:59:47 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:04 UTC