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

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:54:29PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 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?

there are no known clang bugs (at least known to me) related to FreeBSD

in other words - at this point you can compile FreeBSD with clang (both
in the version in clangbsd) and it "works" (for people who tested it)
on amd64 and i386

roman