Re: Importing clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:14:09AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 09:52:48 +0200 Roman Divacky <rdivacky_at_freebsd.org>  wrote:
> > 
> > I would like to propose to integrate clang/LLVM into FreeBSD HEAD
> > in the near future (days, not weeks).
> > 
> > clang/LLVM is a C/C++/ObjC compiler (framework) which aims to possibly
> > replace gcc. It is BSDL-like licensed. The sources are ~45MB (the
> > svn checkout is 97MB). Clang/LLVM is written in C++.
> > 
> > Clang can compile all of FreeBSD on i386/amd64 including world and booting
> > kernel. Other architectures that are close to working are MIPS, PowerPC
> > and ARM. We have a branch (clangbsd-import) that just includes clang/LLVM
> > sources and the build infrastructure and this is what we aim to integrate
> > at first.
> >
> > The import of clang/LLVM was discussed at the toolchain summit May 10th
> > but I would like to hear your opinion. I got approval from core_at_ on
> > importing it.
> > 
> > So please share your support or resistance to the idea of importing clang.
> > 
> > Roman Divacky
> 
> I already use clang for some things but I think the issue
> here is not support/resistance but something else:
> 
> * IMHO for a change of this nature the core needs to publish
>   a set of clear acceptance criteria for importing clang.
>   Can this be done?
 
I asked core_at_ and they support the import

> * Since clang doesn't support all the archs, what is the plan
>   for unsupported archs?
>   a. Is FreeBSD going to have both compilers in the base?

yes, this is what this import is about - importing clang, 
nothing else changes

>   b. Is the project drop these FreeBSD ports? or

no, of course not

>   c. Do people have to import gcc from ports to build these
>      FreeBSD ports?
 
nothing is being changed, just one more application after
a buildworld/installworld appears (that being clang)

> * What about ports?
> 
> * Basically the core needs to lay out a roadmap.
> 
> It is clear that not everyone has the same view of what the
> acceptance criteria might be so publishing it would help
> people understand what to expect.

nothing changes for the ports, there's an ongoing project to enable
ports to be usable with clang (or some other compiler) but thats
orthogonal to this.