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

2010/5/31 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel_at_gmail.com>:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:03:17AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
>> On May 30, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
>> >> hi,
>> >>
>> >> ClangBSD was updated to LLVM/clang revision 104832 which is what we
>> >> aim to import into HEAD in roughly a week. We would like the initial
>> > It was promised that before the import, the public discussion on
>> > the mailing list will happen. So far, nothing appeared on either
>> > arch_at_ or current_at_ providing argumentation why should we accept this.
>>
>> Sounds like you're inviting the discussion right now.  I'll start =-)
>>
>> 1. I hate gcc with the burning heat of a million suns. It's not a
>> tool, it's a political weapon wielded by the FSF and their acolytes.
>> It's also a crummy piece of software that has been "good enough" for
>> far too long. Its development model is a burden to work with and has
>> been a major liability towards FreeBSD releases in the past. Its
>> demise cannot happen soon enough.
>>
>> 2. Due to the political bent of the GPL3 and the FSF's insistence
>> on shoving it down everyone's throats, FreeBSD is stuck with a
>> dead-end version of gcc. This has already been a liability in terms
>> of addressing bugs in gcc itself, and it will only get worse as
>> technology moves forward and gcc stands still.
>>
>> 3. Clang/LLVM has an active development base and a clear future. It
>> will move forward while gcc rots. There simply is no future left in
>> gcc unless the FreeBSD project decides to embrace the GPL3, and that's
>> a move that has already been heavily discussed, debated, and decided
>> on. Anecdotally, I think that FreeBSD is benefiting from shunning the
>> GPL3; it's made it an attractive option for companies looking for an
>> unencumbered OS for their products.
>>
>> 4. While Clang is immature now, it will mature in the near future,
>> and FreeBSD will benefit from that process. FreeBSD will get built-in
>> access to upcoming technologies like GCD+Blocks and better code
>> editors and development tools that gcc will never support. It'll break
>> free of the development stranglehold that exists within gcc. Clang has
>> shown good agility in adapting to the needs of FreeBSD and the legacy
>> of gcc, thanks in large part to the efforts of people like Roman. Gcc
>> has been nothing but drama and headache, even with the valiant efforts
>> of people like Alexander Kabaev.
>>
>> 5. If all of this turns out to not be true and Clang/LLVM fails,
>> FreeBSD has lost nothing and can remove it from the base system. Gcc
>> remains where it is for now, at least until it's time for the "remove
>> gcc discussion".
>>
>> The future is !gcc. Putting Clang+LLVM into a position where it can
>> be easily embraced by FreeBSD users will greatly benefit the FreeBSD
>> project.
>>
>> Scott
>>
> I do not object to a single point in your message. On the other hand, all
> said could be labeled as distilled propaganda.
>
> My main concern is the usefulness of HEAD for routine bug-fixing process.
>
> The proposed merge makes it relatively easy for users to start compiling
> the system with CLang. Our HEAD userbase is one of the most valuable
> project asset to ensure the quality of the system. After the support for
> easy compilation with clang is imported, some substantial portion of the
> HEAD users definitely start experimenting with it. This immediately makes
> the bug reports against HEAD almost useless, since level of demotivation
> when looking at the bug is immense. When you do know that the issue can
> be in the compiler, and not the OS, why looking ?
>
> Any bug analisys now shall start with exchange to verify which compiler
> was used to build the reporter system, and ask to reproduce it with gcc.
> [I am talking not only about gnats, but also mailing list questions,
> private pleas for help etc].
>
> My personal opinion is that pushing the import now at the present state
> of clang makes a disservice to FreeBSD, and possible clang. Why not keep
> the glue on the branch as it is ? Motivated testers willing to help
> definitely can checkout from the branch. Import can happen when we are
> satisfied with the quality of new compiler, instead of discontent about
> old one.

FWIW, I entirely agree with Kostik here.
I really would like to see CLANG more integrated with FreeBSD only
when there are 0 or similar (well-known, already analyzed, listed
somewhere, etc.) bugs by the compiler rather than still being in the
middle of a bug storm. Besides, the 'debugging problem' is pretty much
real and nobody answered with a reasonable solution for it, and being
honest, I don't see the people pushing for the import concerned about
that at all.

Are all the bug reports collected somewhere? What's the state of their
resolution? There is a description somewhere of missing support and
things still to be addressed?

Thanks,
Attilio


-- 
Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein