HEADS UP: merged llvm/clang 3.4

[Ian Lepore]

On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 23:19 +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2014, at 22:55, Ian Lepore <ian at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 22:35 +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> ...
> >> I'm now testing something similar, which also tests the FreeBSD version,
> >> so it can be applied to head and then MFC'd.  I will commit it soon.
> >> 
> >> -Dimitry
> >> 
> > 
> > Why test the version?  The tools on head can't handle dwarf4 any better
> > than the tools on the stable branches.  I don't understand the sudden
> > change in mindset that after 20 years of freebsd providing a completely
> > usable development environment in base, now all of a sudden it's okay to
> > not do that anymore.
> 
> The change in mindset is simply to modernize, e.g. move away from
> ancient tools and formats.  Otherwise we will be stuck in the pre-GPLv3
> era forever.
> 
> Also, "The tools" is really only our ancient version of gdb, and that
> should be removed from base as soon as lldb is usable.  The rest of base
> (really only the CTF tools) can handle dwarf4, now a more recent version
> of libdwarf is available.
> 
> 
> > It seems fine to me to say "If you want better tools, use the latest
> > ports" but not fine to say "If you want any tools at all, use the latest
> > ports (oh and by the way, good luck with cross-building if you're not an
> > amd64 person)."
> 
> Strange, I thought the general opinion was to actually remove as much
> stuff from base as possible.  With the toolchain being the most logical
> one to move out?  But maybe I didn't get the memo... :-)
> 

Well, there is certainly a growing religion organizing around that
dogma.  I am not an adherent to such thinking.  I have nothing against
supporting an external toolchain, and I'm dead set against requiring it.

-- Ian