FreeBSD/CLANG ready for testing -> now imported in HEAD

Original email

Just note that email says to do:
$ cd clangbsd && make buildworld
$ echo NO_WERROR= >> /etc/make.conf
$ echo WERROR= >> /etc/make.conf

But this is wrong, you should do WERROR stuff before buildworld.
 
kpedersen said:
I tried this a while ago and it compiled etc... perfectly, but the c++ was broken. Has any work been done on this?
Click to expand...

A lot of work has been done in improving clang's C++ support, and since "a while ago" it has most definitely gotten better. It's not perfect, but it's getting there.
 
Some questions

I am using the FreeBSD boot manager to dual-boot Windows and FreeBSD. Do I need to take any special steps or does it not matter?

Since I use ccache, do I need to modify any settings in /.cshrc or /etc/make.conf?

Can I use FreeBSD/Clang to recompile ports or should I stick with using it to compile the OS and kernel?
 
troberts said:
I am using the FreeBSD boot manager to dual-boot Windows and FreeBSD. Do I need to take any special steps or does it not matter?
Click to expand...
You shouldn't need any special steps since it's still the same FreeBSD, just compiled by clang and includes clang/llvm in base system. But as the email mentions, you shouldn't install it on real hardware yet, it's not tested enough, and if you lose data, it's your own fault for trusting experimental software. I'm not saying it won't work, just make sure you have backups if you want to replace normal FreeBSD with ClangBSD.

troberts said:
Since I use ccache, do I need to modify any settings in /.cshrc or /etc/make.conf?
Click to expand...
Sorry, can't tell anything about ccache because I never used it.

troberts said:
Can I use FreeBSD/Clang to recompile ports or should I stick with using it to compile the OS and kernel?
Click to expand...
Using clang with ports right now would be a very bad idea. You should stick with gcc for now. There is some work done to get ports to work with clang, but it's nowhere near complete yet. I expect some/many clang fixes to go to ports tree in the next few months, but don't quote me on that.
 
aragon said:
FWIW, Phoronix benchmarked LLVM/Clang recently. Pity they didn't stack it up against GCC 4.2 though...
Click to expand...

There's nothing preventing us from running the benchmark tests ourselves, rather than waiting for Phoronix or someone else to do it for us. Seems like something we'd want to be doing anyway, if we're serious about moving to clang.

There are several benchmark suites in the portstree. The apps Phoronix used to test compile times and performance are in the tree too.
 
I believe that switching mainline FreeBSD to Clang would be a good idea. It would make FreeBSD dependent on a completely BSD toolchain. It would be great if 9.0 or 8.x is compiled with Clang. Clang has many other benefits such as better diagnostics. I support the idea of moving FreeBSD to Clang.
 
Yeah, if you go through the archives, there's a post that shows the difference in time it takes to compile clang. Using gcc it was over 1100 (sec/min?) and building clang with clang was under 700.
 
What's the problem with GPLv3 and BSD? What's _different_ compared to GPLv2, that makes it infeasible to use GCC as a userland tool in FreeBSD?
 
vermaden said:
http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31161
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/...ld-i-fall-into-the-same-situa/3809007#3809007
http://www.zdnet.com.au/gplv3-to-drive-users-from-linux-to-freebsd-339281694.htm
http://lists.nycbug.org/pipermail/talk/2007-September/010446.html
Click to expand...

Ok, I read through all of the links yesterday and figured there are two major, suspected problems with GPLv3, that did not exist with GPLv2:

  1. 'Distributing' a FreeBSD (with GPLv3 Code in it, like gcc) in any way, be it a mirror or an embedded application makes YOU a distributor of GPLv3 code and by that, you basically promise to not sue anyone using that GPLv3 code with patents you hold 'against' that GPLv3 code. The big, presumed problem is, that you also promise not to sue anyone basing his or her work on that code. So if your company mirrors FreeBSD with a GPLv3 gcc, you cannot sue anyone for infringing your patents, as long as the infringement is based on the gcc
  2. The second and less important point should be here, but while writing the first, I forgot it. I will replace this section once I remember and figure out how to edit posts. :)

As for the first point, I read the FreeBSD foundation hired lawyers to look into it. Has there been a result so far?
 
vermaden said:
The biggest problem of GPL3 is probably that You need bunch of lawyers to actually understand what it means.
Click to expand...

... and the biggest problem with a bunch of lawyers is that you get more answers as said bunch contains lawyers.

IIRC Kishon (the author) refused to sign any contract with more than one page and written in such a way that he needed to read it more than once to understand it. Let that be the goal for licences and EULAs.
 
Crivens said:
IIRC Kishon (the author) refused to sign any contract with more than one page and written in such a way that he needed to read it more than once to understand it. Let that be the goal for licences and EULAs.
Click to expand...

Well stated
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top