Re: Importing LLVM/Clang

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:43:50AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> >I would still strongly request that *no* local changes are made. I
> >will discuss a NetBSD branch in the relevant upstream repositories
> >that can be used for merging "temporary" / "local" changes for
> >import in our tree.
> 
> Committing to some upstream repository and then merging, instead of
> committing directly to the NetBSD repository, means that fewer
> people will be able to do it, and it will probably take longer.  I
> think it would be fine to try that method, and reconsider later if
> it proves to be a problem.

Getting LLVM commit access is moderately easy, it certainly doesn't
involve selling your first born to the FSF. If it really turns out to be
a problem, we can consider a more relaxed stance in the future.

> >In principle, NetBSD i386 and amd64 can be switched to LLVM/Clang
> >now.
> 
> I wouldn't make LLVM/Clang the default compiler right now, but I
> would encourage people to test it with a view to making it the
> default compiler in the future.

Agreed. I just wanted to make it clear that I consider it stable.

> I have successfully run versions of NetBSD-current/i386 built by
> LLVM/Clang in the past, though I am running a gcc-built system right
> now.  I do not recall any run-time problems, but there were several
> compiler warnings or errors that needed to be fixed.

You mean different from the problems a newer GCC brings? :)

Joerg