DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2011-11
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fixes necessaries for compile dfly with clang

From: Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado <iam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:32:27 +0100

On 11/17/2011 08:11 AM, John Marino wrote:

Other problem is the C++ code (e.g. binutils doesn't compile) but I consider most important now only the problems related to C.

Well, that's a deal-breaker. If the project made a decree that the
base compiler languages were limited to c-languages, then I would
probably advocate clang over gcc in the long-term (I know Samuel's
argument, and I could provide some rebuttal to his concerns).
However, that means we accept C++ in the base, and I would like to
see the gold linker be able to be a drop-in replacement for ld (I
have hopes for binutils 2.22).  If clang can't property build a
fundamental part of the toolchain, it's a non-starter in my eyes.

That said, I have a hard time believing the clang folks would let
binutils not be buildable.  What's wrong there?

Don't worry. I talked about the C code because the most of the code in dfly is written in C, so this should be the first step. The fact is I would like a base only with C code or with more languages available like python, perl and gccgo :) (I think I'm dreaming). I think the arguments from you and Samuel are correct both.

Compile dfly with two different compilers is very good for the project,
e.g.: clang cried like a baby because the bug in the Makefile of
libmagic but gcc ignored the problem.

I don't remember what was the problem with binutils. It's strange
because clang also can use the gold linker. But citrus is more important
now, so step by step.


Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info

[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]