Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 09:27:07AM -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hello;
>  
> Just my $0.02.
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
>  ...
> > 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.
> > 
> > I do strongly oppose the attempt to drain the freebsd resources by
> > forcing porters to port third-party code to other compiler.
> > 
> 
> I can only speak for Apache OpenOffice but since Apple did the switch
> already we are feeling a growing pressure to port OpenOffice to clang.
> 
> For the time being we need gcc but we would really prefer something
> more up to date than gcc 4.2.1 + fixes. In other words, yes making
> clang the default may sound drastic but I am OK with killing base
> gcc and if clang is what is left I can live with it.

But allowing ports to select the compiler is the main point of my
response, at least in the port part of it. I mean global configuration,
and not referenced the existing per-port knobs (USE_GCC/WANT_GCC whatever).

I would expect the portmgr to select some gcc (or clang or pcc or anything
they find suitable) version and use it for a moment for ports. I do not
claim that portmgr would consider 4.2.1 as the base for the switch but
this is probably the least intrusive road right now.

I do expect that selection shall be based on some measurement of the
most supported compiler, and my gut feeling is that it ends as a version
of gcc. Definitely, FreeBSD project is not a suitable place to make an
efforts to port all existing OSS to clang, despite the opposite claims
of the clang proponents.