Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

Fwiw, I commited the "dont use long nops on amd geode" thing into llvm a few minutes ago. So this issue doesnt exist anymore. On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 07:19:07PM +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello, Patrick. > You wrote 12 2012 ?., 1:22:44: > > PL> Well, I will not be able to run FreeBS

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On 15-09-2012 17:39, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Tijl Coosemans > wrote: > >> On 15-09-2012 16:09, Roman Divacky wrote: > >>> Is this correct? > >>> > >>> lev ~$ ./cos 1.23456789e20 > >>> 6.031937e-01

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 15-09-2012 17:39, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >> On 15-09-2012 16:09, Roman Divacky wrote: >>> Is this correct? >>> >>> lev ~$ ./cos 1.23456789e20 >>> 6.031937e-01 >>> -9.629173e-02 >>> 2.814722e-01 >> >> Yes, that's what the libm call

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 07:18:28PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2012-09-15 16:30, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > >On 15-09-2012 16:09, Roman Divacky wrote: > >>Is this correct? > >> > >>lev ~$ ./cos 1.23456789e20 > >>6.031937e-01 > >>-9.629173e-02 > >>2.814722e-01 > > > >Yes, that's what the libm cal

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 2012-09-15 16:30, Tijl Coosemans wrote: On 15-09-2012 16:09, Roman Divacky wrote: Is this correct? lev ~$ ./cos 1.23456789e20 6.031937e-01 -9.629173e-02 2.814722e-01 Yes, that's what the libm call returns. Fix committed in .

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Sep 15, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Roman Divacky wrote: > LLVM by default turns these: > >case LibFunc::copysign: case LibFunc::copysignf: case LibFunc::copysignl: >case LibFunc::fabs: case LibFunc::fabsf: case LibFunc::fabsl: >case LibFunc::sin: case LibFunc::sinf:

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On 15-09-2012 16:09, Roman Divacky wrote: > > Is this correct? > > > > lev ~$ ./cos 1.23456789e20 > > 6.031937e-01 > > -9.629173e-02 > > 2.814722e-01 > > Yes, that's what the libm call returns. > > Linux z 3.5.3-1.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On 15-09-2012 16:09, Roman Divacky wrote: > > Is this correct? > > > > lev ~$ ./cos 1.23456789e20 > > 6.031937e-01 > > -9.629173e-02 > > 2.814722e-01 > > Yes, that's what the libm call returns. > > The following is a result in Fedora 17 x

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 15-09-2012 16:09, Roman Divacky wrote: > Is this correct? > > lev ~$ ./cos 1.23456789e20 > 6.031937e-01 > -9.629173e-02 > 2.814722e-01 Yes, that's what the libm call returns. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

Is this correct? lev ~$ ./cos 1.23456789e20 6.031937e-01 -9.629173e-02 2.814722e-01 If so I believe the issue is fixed. On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 03:48:38PM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On 15-09-2012 14:48, Roman Divacky wrote: > > Fwiw, this seems to have been fixed as of a few minutes ago. > >

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 15-09-2012 14:48, Roman Divacky wrote: > Fwiw, this seems to have been fixed as of a few minutes ago. > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120910/150720.html > > Steve, can you please test llvm/clang from (their) svn and report > back? We can import a newer snapsho

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

Fwiw, this seems to have been fixed as of a few minutes ago. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120910/150720.html Steve, can you please test llvm/clang from (their) svn and report back? We can import a newer snapshot if all is ok. Thank you. On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 0

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 15-09-2012 03:06, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 05:18:08PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: >> >> A third class of failure appears to be that clang emits >> i387 fpu instructions for at least sinf and cosf instead >> of calls to the library routines. AFAIK, the library >> routines are

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

LLVM by default turns these: case LibFunc::copysign: case LibFunc::copysignf: case LibFunc::copysignl: case LibFunc::fabs: case LibFunc::fabsf: case LibFunc::fabsl: case LibFunc::sin: case LibFunc::sinf: case LibFunc::sinl: case LibFunc::cos: case LibF

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 05:18:08PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > A third class of failure appears to be that clang emits > i387 fpu instructions for at least sinf and cosf instead > of calls to the library routines. AFAIK, the library > routines are faster and more accurate. > Yep. Clang has p

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 03:23:19PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 09:10:24AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > ok 1 - cexp zero > > Abort trap (core dumped) > > *** [tests] Error code 134 > > > > Stop in /usr/src/tools/regression/lib/msun. > > Prompted by this post, I did a bit

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:23:19 -0500 Brooks Davis wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 09:10:24AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 09:32:12AM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: > > > On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 19:08 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > In regards to my initial post in this thread, I

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 09:10:24AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 09:32:12AM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 19:08 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > In regards to my initial post in this thread, I was just trying > > > to assess whether any benchmarks have been

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 06:25:37PM +0200, Stefan Farfeleder wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 09:10:24AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > clang -O2 -pipe -march=opteron -O0 -lm test-cexp.c -o test-cexp > > test-cexp.c:49:14: warning: pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS ON is not supported, > > ignoring pragma [

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 09:10:24AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > clang -O2 -pipe -march=opteron -O0 -lm test-cexp.c -o test-cexp > test-cexp.c:49:14: warning: pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS ON is not supported, > ignoring pragma [-Wunknown-pragmas] > #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESSON [...] > So, clang

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 09:32:12AM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 19:08 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > In regards to my initial post in this thread, I was just trying > > to assess whether any benchmarks have been performed on FreeBSD > > for floating point generated by clang. Oth

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 19:08 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > In regards to my initial post in this thread, I was just trying > to assess whether any benchmarks have been performed on FreeBSD > for floating point generated by clang. Other than the limited > testing that I've done, it appears that the an

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 08:21:31AM +0200, Pietro Cerutti wrote: > On 2012-Sep-11, 23:29, Doug Barton wrote: > > What we need to do is what I and others have been asking to do for > > years. We need to designate a modern version of gcc (no less than 4.6) > > as the official default ports compiler, a

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 2012-Sep-11, 23:29, Doug Barton wrote: > What we need to do is what I and others have been asking to do for > years. We need to designate a modern version of gcc (no less than 4.6) > as the official default ports compiler, and rework whatever is needed to > support this. Fortunately, that goal i

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

Doug Barton writes: > On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote: >> So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with >> USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang? > > Unfortunately it isn't that simple. We already have a statistically > significant number of po

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 04:42:27PM -0500, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > On 09/11/12 09:56, Dimitry Andric wrote: > >On 2012-09-11 16:27, Tijl Coosemans wrote:> On 11-09-2012 16:10, > >Dimitry Andric wrote: > >... > >>>Yes, maths support, specifically precision, is admittedly still one of > >>>clang's

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with > USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang? This could allow > the clang switch to proceed. Hopefully, waiting for GCC to compile just > to install some tiny port will b

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 09/11/12 09:56, Dimitry Andric wrote: On 2012-09-11 16:27, Tijl Coosemans wrote:> On 11-09-2012 16:10, Dimitry Andric wrote: ... Yes, maths support, specifically precision, is admittedly still one of clang's (really llvm's) weaker points. It is currently not really a high priority item for

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 9/12/2012 1:49 AM, David Chisnall wrote: > On 12 Sep 2012, at 10:09, Doug Barton wrote: > >> Also, users who actually are helping with testing clang for ports >> continue to report runtime problems, even with things that build fine. > > I hope that you are encouraging maintainers of ports that

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 9/12/2012 12:40 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > Den 12/09/2012 kl. 11.29 skrev Doug Barton : > >> On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote: >>> So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports >>> with USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang? >> >> Unfortunately

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

Hello, Patrick. You wrote 12 сентября 2012 г., 1:22:44: PL> Well, I will not be able to run FreeBSD from scratch on my soekris :-) Thank you for warning, I've missed this. -- // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:03:43PM +0200, Lars Engels wrote: > two of the ports I maintain don't build with CLANG, yet. I > just checked that on the wiki page [1]. To repeat myself, the ports I've listed on that page are the "big problems". People need to look at the errorlogs URLs up at the top

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 04:15:20AM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote: > > At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports > > build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to. > > I think this is a mis-representat

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 12 Sep 2012, at 10:09, Doug Barton wrote: > Also, users who actually are helping with testing clang for ports > continue to report runtime problems, even with things that build fine. I hope that you are encouraging maintainers of ports that don't work as expected with clang to submit bug repo

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 09/11/2012 05:03 AM, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:10:13PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> >> However, I think the majority of users can get by just fine using clang, >> right now. Doug Barton even confirmed in this thread that 80% of our >> ports already work with it! > > He

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

Den 12/09/2012 kl. 11.29 skrev Doug Barton : > On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote: >> So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with >> USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang? > > Unfortunately it isn't that simple. We already have a statistically >

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

Fwiw, I plan to fix this issue, but even if I didnt. This isnt a problem in clang rather than in llvm asm. So it can be easily worked around by CFLAGS+=-no-integrated-as. Roman On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:22:44PM +0200, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote: > Le Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:12:07 -0500, > Brooks Davis

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 09/11/2012 11:15 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote: >> At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports >> build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to. > > I think this is a mis-representation. > > Adding the

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with > USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang? Unfortunately it isn't that simple. We already have a statistically significant number of ports that don't even compile wit

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 12 Sep 2012, at 10:15, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote: >> At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports >> build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to. > > I think this is a mis-representation. > > Addin

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote: > At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports > build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to. I think this is a mis-representation. Adding the requirement "your ports must work on clang" is adding a

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:07:04AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: >> There is some logic in the clang driver already for knowing when it is >> invoked as gcc. I'd be quite tempted to make gcc a symlink to clang >> and make clang default to gnu8

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

Le Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:12:07 -0500, Brooks Davis a écrit : Hello, > For the past several years we've been working towards migrating from > GCC to Clang/LLVM as our default compiler. We intend to ship FreeBSD > 10.0 with Clang as the default compiler on i386 and amd64 platforms. > To this end, w

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:07:04AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: > There is some logic in the clang driver already for knowing when it is > invoked as gcc. I'd be quite tempted to make gcc a symlink to clang > and make clang default to gnu89 when invoked in that way. And how then does a port say "

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

Thank you for taking time to explain the situation. I don't follow as closely as many on the current list do (and not subbed to toolchain). I'm sure the libm situation is on many people's radar now. Hopefully this can be resolved. My apologies for being so daft :-) ___

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 07:19:48PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 08:12:30AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > I'm not sure if anyone has done any extensive testing. > > I've started to run some of my test codes to compare > > certain functions in a clang-compiled libm, gcc-

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Roman Divacky wrote: > > Can you please provide a small self contained test case that shows > that clang is doing worse on accuracy than gcc? > > So that we can analyze it and decide if it's a bug in the code or > in the compiler. So far we know absolutely nothing.

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:14:09PM -0500, Mark Felder wrote: > "Clang produces incorrect code" vs "Clang's floating point has > issues" are two different arguments. Wow. clang produces incorrect floating point code, and that's somehow just an issue with floating point. > For a mathematical appl

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 08:12:30AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:27:55PM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > > On 11-09-2012 16:10, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > > On 2012-09-11 15:24, Steve Kargl wrote: > > >> What is important is whether software built with clang functions > > >>

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

"Clang produces incorrect code" vs "Clang's floating point has issues" are two different arguments. For a mathematical application it would be stupid to use clang if this is the case. I see no problem with it being the default compiler though. If Atlas is in ports the maintainer can just force

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:42:53AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote: > On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:10:24 -0500, Michael Butler > wrote: > > >- From the link (http://math-atlas.sourceforge.net/errata.html#WhatComp) > >that Steve Kargl referenced (dated July 2012). > > > I don't know where this guy is getti

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

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:10:24 -0500, Michael Butler wrote: - From the link (http://math-atlas.sourceforge.net/errata.html#WhatComp) that Steve Kargl referenced (dated July 2012). I don't know where this guy is getting his info, but CLANG is /more/ standards compliant and doesn't have an i

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

--On September 11, 2012 2:44:03 AM -0700 Doug Barton wrote: Doug, as you can already use CLANG instead of GCC now, you will be able to use GCC instead of CLANG after November 4th. There's lots of things I _can_ do, what we're discussing is what the defaults should be. At the moment the port

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

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

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: > >> 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

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: > 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 compi

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

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 ports from compilation. So if we fixed those 1

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:27:55PM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On 11-09-2012 16:10, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > On 2012-09-11 15:24, Steve Kargl wrote: > >> What is important is whether software built with clang functions > >> correctly. See for example, > >> > >> http://math-atlas.sourceforge.ne

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:10:13PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2012-09-11 15:24, Steve Kargl wrote: > ... > >How fast clang builds world in comparison to gcc is irrelevant. > > Not at all irrelevant: this proposal is about changing the default > compiler for the FreeBSD system itself, not fo

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > 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 o

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 2012-09-11 16:27, Tijl Coosemans wrote:> On 11-09-2012 16:10, Dimitry Andric wrote: ... Yes, maths support, specifically precision, is admittedly still one of clang's (really llvm's) weaker points. It is currently not really a high priority item for upstream. This is obviously something tha

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 9/11/12, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 01:45:18PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:12:07PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: >> > For the past several years we've been working towards migrating from >> > GCC to Clang/LLVM as our default compiler. We inte

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 11 Sep 2012 13:22, "Konstantin Belousov" wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote: > > > > tl;dr: Clang will become the default compiler for x86 architectures on 2012-11-04 > > > > > > There was a chorus of voices talking about ports already. My POV > > > is that

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 11-09-2012 16:10, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2012-09-11 15:24, Steve Kargl wrote: >> What is important is whether software built with clang functions >> correctly. See for example, >> >> http://math-atlas.sourceforge.net/errata.html#WhatComp > > Yes, maths support, specifically precision, is a

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/11/12 09:44, Christer Solskogen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Steve Kargl > wrote: >> Interest twist of history. GCC is not abandonware. > > Correct, but GCC 4.2.1 is. > While this may be true, I'm not inclined to move any of my

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 2012-09-11 15:24, Steve Kargl wrote: ... How fast clang builds world in comparison to gcc is irrelevant. Not at all irrelevant: this proposal is about changing the default compiler for the FreeBSD system itself, not for all software out there. If certain software performs significantly bett

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 01:45:18PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:12:07PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > > For the past several years we've been working towards migrating from > > GCC to Clang/LLVM as our default compiler. We intend to ship FreeBSD > > 10.0 with Clang

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > Interest twist of history. GCC is not abandonware. Correct, but GCC 4.2.1 is. -- chs, ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsu

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:52:20PM +0200, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > Den 11/09/2012 kl. 14.38 skrev Roman Divacky : > > By the nature of "developing the OS" we are forced to use compilers and > > toolchains. Recently I saw you submitting/committing patches with .byte > > sequences because our defaul

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote: > > > tl;dr: Clang will become the default compiler for x86 architectures on > > > 2012-11-04 > > > Another issue with the switch, which seems to be not only not addressed, > > but even not talked about, is the performance impact of t

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

Roman, Den 11/09/2012 kl. 14.38 skrev Roman Divacky : > > Upstream developers almost never use gcc4.2.1 as we do. So right now the > ports maintainer must check whats wrong in the case the (upgraded) port > doesnt compile with our in-tree gcc. > > > It can be trivial USE_GCC=4.something but the

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 03:21:22PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote: > > > > tl;dr: Clang will become the default compiler for x86 architectures on > > > > 2012-11-04 > > > > > > There was a chorus of voices talking about ports alre

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote: > > > tl;dr: Clang will become the default compiler for x86 architectures on > > > 2012-11-04 > > > > There was a chorus of voices talking about ports already. My POV > > is that suggesting to 'fix remaining ports to work with clang'

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

> > tl;dr: Clang will become the default compiler for x86 architectures on > > 2012-11-04 > > There was a chorus of voices talking about ports already. My POV > is that suggesting to 'fix remaining ports to work with clang' is > just a nonsense. You are proposing to fork the development of all th

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:12:07PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > [Please confine your replies to toolch...@freebsd.org to keep the thread > on the most relevant list.] I do not see how removing current@ can be done, toolchain@ is not relevant for this discussion. Proposed is not a local change in th

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 09/11/2012 02:27 AM, Lars Engels wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:54:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >> As of last week, 4,680 ports out of 23,857 failed to build with clang on >> 9-amd64. That's almost a 20% failure rate. Until we have better support >> for either building ports with clang, o

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:54:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > As of last week, 4,680 ports out of 23,857 failed to build with clang on > 9-amd64. That's almost a 20% failure rate. Until we have better support > for either building ports with clang, or have better support for the > idea of a "ports

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 11 Sep 2012, at 09:18, Dimitry Andric wrote: > So I am a bit reluctant to change clang's default standard to c89, > unless clang upstream agrees with this. In the interest of prodding > people to update their software, I would rather have the default stay > c99, personally. :) I'm not proposi

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 2012-09-11 09:58, David Chisnall wrote: Clang should default to c89 mode when invoked as cc. I had a patch to do this, but I seem to have misplaced it. I'll try to find or rewrite it in the next couple of days. A lot of the ports failures I saw were due to ports using cc as the default C

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

I'd add one more thing that needs fixing: Clang should default to c89 mode when invoked as cc. I had a patch to do this, but I seem to have misplaced it. I'll try to find or rewrite it in the next couple of days. A lot of the ports failures I saw were due to ports using cc as the default C

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 As of last week, 4,680 ports out of 23,857 failed to build with clang on 9-amd64. That's almost a 20% failure rate. Until we have better support for either building ports with clang, or have better support for the idea of a "ports compiler," this cha

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 09/10/12 14:22, Daniel Eischen wrote: On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Brooks Davis wrote: [Please confine your replies to toolch...@freebsd.org to keep the thread on the most relevant list.] For the past several years we've been working towards migrating from GCC to Clang/LLVM as our default compiler.

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 05:22:37PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Brooks Davis wrote: > > > [Please confine your replies to toolch...@freebsd.org to keep the thread > > on the most relevant list.] > > > > For the past several years we've been working towards migrating from > >

Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Brooks Davis wrote: [Please confine your replies to toolch...@freebsd.org to keep the thread on the most relevant list.] For the past several years we've been working towards migrating from GCC to Clang/LLVM as our default compiler. We intend to ship FreeBSD 10.0 with Clan

Clang as default compiler November 4th

[Please confine your replies to toolch...@freebsd.org to keep the thread on the most relevant list.] For the past several years we've been working towards migrating from GCC to Clang/LLVM as our default compiler. We intend to ship FreeBSD 10.0 with Clang as the default compiler on i386 and amd64