Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

From: Daniel Eischen <deischen_at_freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:35:02 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
>>
>> We currently dont compile 4680 ports (out of 23857). Top 10 ports that prevent
>> the most other ports from compiling together prevent 2222 ports from
>> compilation. So if we fixed those 10 ports we could be at around 2500 ports
>> not compiling. Thats quite far from your claim of forking 20k programs.
>
> Sorry, I cannot buy the argument. How many patches there are already
> in the ports tree to cope with clang incompatibility with gcc ? You may
> declare that all of them are application bugs, but it completely misses
> the point.

[ snip ]

>> I believe majority of the broken ports is broken because their maintainer
>> never saw them being broken with clang just because it's not the default
>> compiler. Thus by making it the default majority of the problems would just
>> go away.
>
> Can you, please, read what I wrote ? Fixing _ports_ to compile with
> clang is plain wrong. Upstream developers use gcc almost always for
> development and testing. Establishing another constant cost on the
> porting work puts burden on the ports submitters, maintainers and even
> ports users.

This is a good point!

-- 
DE
Received on Tue Sep 11 2012 - 13:35:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:30 UTC