-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/11/2012 02:16 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
On 05/10/2012 04:56 AM, David Airlie wrote:
> Don't confuse llvm and clang, llvm has no equivalent in gcc
> world, clang is a C compiler like gcc that uses llvm tech.
Right so I wasn't confusing these :) However, we package both
together and for ease of discussion many folks are going to think
of it as a gcc alternative (aside from the specific gfx situations
you and ajax have).
My main concern was potential for growing use beyond that. I made
an analogy about glibc to which I accept ajax's response that
they're trying to reconcile with eglibc, but it's more the general
concept I was getting at. Let me avoid a specific example because
someone will find a way to find a hole in it :) Instead, my stance
is we want to be very careful about unsupportable use of LLVM. I've
filed a ticket with FESCo so hopefully there can be some debate as
to acceptable use :)
> It probably makes sense that one of myself, ajax or glisse help
> out packaging llvm, but we aren't the most reliable people in
> terms of spare time to commit.
Right. You guys have various incentives to care about specific use
of LLVM itself so I'm sure it will always be supported to some
level, but for the other piece - clang+LLVM, etc. - to grow further
use in the distro (in displacement of gcc) I feel we'd need to have
actual RH staff to support it that I don't think we have any plans
to have. So I want to cut this off at the pass before we blink and
we have a problem.
Maybe we should draw more of a distinction between LLVM and clang, and
use ExclusiveArch: on the latter to whitelist only architectures we
feel comfortable supporting?
I'm at the moment not really comfortable switching LLVM to be built
with Clang as the default -- given that on Linux it has a brittle
dependency on specific versions of libstdc++. But we could certainly
make it a switchable build-time option.
Apart from the worrying test suite results on secondary archs,
actually it's the libstdc++ issue that's causing the most headache.
How much effort does it take to maintain a compatibility version of
libstdc++? It'd make clang much more useful if we're not caught
between upstream (that abandons released versions) and the Fedora GCC
team's fast update cycles.
Thanks,
- --
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor:
http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\
www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPr0TxAAoJEEr1VKujapN6uZsIAIGhhi29Z81Ko9ayvsYqijfR
b7lpEwHihJBETbsFrP5zxqAIwdr5lIvE+Ox6thK9RIHdpICIurwO9rWQ0pparBqf
JLcsLeYfm96P7uoTWkjdwJTs9KHvntLtXJLek40vGq74vX43ysnNuI8vs2DqN0zB
8W10OIQfj1G7dw9tDtQjDKXZLc3mIki3lAAUesv78oSZNdFjkv28Go8K+Fku27uU
XQAmK3SzIApvSPAvjuemDruwU9M2TwXmVsUDlNLtI/LYRZfm1NikX+BfP/bNCelj
51aP1livuXdhqndrEMj5/6sL2V0ku1IAJtQgdutS9bgQIJzhm2E31Mr3uE3uSlM=
=iiGx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----