On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:54:29PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote: > 2010/5/31 Kostik Belousov <kostik...@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@ or current@ 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
pgpPkTlwRqVBh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
