Re: gcc compilation broken with SVN r264042

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2014, at 21:21, Steve Kargl <sgk_at_troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Who is "we" in "even if we don't encourage it..."?  
> 
> "We" is the FreeBSD project, collectively.  For a larger list of
>  things that "we" recommend,

There is a significant difference between "we recommend"
and "we don't encourage".

> > In fact, this is a fairly dumb idea,
> 
> Having a recommended compiler is a dumb idea?
> 

Having a recommended compiler is fine.  Actively discouraging
the use of other compilers is a dumb idea.

> > and *we* should encourage building
> > the base system with as many different compilers as possible.
> 
> I didn't say otherwise,

Ah, yes you did.  Here's the complete quote (with context):

butler> I guess it's time for me to migrate that box to clang :-)
   you> Well, I wouldn't object to that, but it would be good to
        fix this - we still want to be able to build the base
        system with gcc (or another compiler), even if we don't
        encourage it...

You are actively discouraging the use of "gcc (or another compiler)". 
How else is one to interpret the last 5 word + 1 contraction in
your above quote?

> If you're developing FreeBSD or testing, then please compile with
> as many other compilers as you have and contribute patches

I do development on libm (as you know!).  I test with clang and
base system gcc on i386, amd64, and sparc64.  In the past, I also
used pcc and newer versions of gcc to do some libm testing.

> (or even just detailed reports) if they find bugs in the code.

I do report problems with the compilers, but they are typically ignored.

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-toolchain/2014-March/001147.html

You can also read some follow-up analysis here:

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-numerics/2014-March/000549.html

-- 
Steve