Hi Ed et al,
On Fri, 29 May 2009, Ed Schouten wrote:
> I've been looking through /usr/ports/Mk. I suspect such a switch should
> be added to bsd.gcc.mk? I'm sending this message to gerald@ as well,
> because I've been told he is the maintainer of various GCC related bits.
I noticed a patch for
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 11:01:38AM -0400, Diane Bruce wrote:
> By the time FreeBSD-9 is released clang support will be solid and all
> ports will compile with clang as well as gcc.
ooh, can I have unicorns, too? :-)
Seriously, I'd like to see the potential to throw the switch, with
the caveat tha
* Mel Flynn wrote:
> Are there any edge cases of (antiquated) ports that (indirectly) use
> bsd.sys.mk and as such get hit by:
> 11 # the default is gnu99 for now
> 12 CSTD?= gnu99
>
> In other words should one clean CFLAGS of -std before applying the
> forced one, similar
On Saturday 30 May 2009 16:21:52 Ed Schouten wrote:
> Really, I really don't care how it's done, whether it's a flag or added
> to the compiler flags directly. I'm just saying adding it to CFLAGS
> directly sounds like a very bad idea. Adding it to /etc/make.conf sounds
> even worse, because it pr
Hi,
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 04:34:43PM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote:
> * Gabor Kovesdan wrote:
> > As for LLVM, probably it won't work out for the whole ports
> > tree. I don't know what's the portmgr opinion on this, if we start to
> > use LLVM in Ports Collection, we should reconsider the knob, tho
* Gabor Kovesdan wrote:
> As for LLVM, probably it won't work out for the whole ports
> tree. I don't know what's the portmgr opinion on this, if we start to
> use LLVM in Ports Collection, we should reconsider the knob, though.
LLVM/Clang support is trivial. Erwin Lansing fired up an experim
Ed Schouten escribió:
Hi,
I'm proposing the following patch:
--- bsd.port.mk
+++ bsd.port.mk
@@ -2180,6 +2180,10 @@
.endif
.endif
+.if defined(USE_CSTD)
+CFLAGS+= -std=${USE_CSTD}
+.endif
+
# Multiple make jobs support
.if defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS) || defined(MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE)
_M
Ed Schouten escribió:
* Gabor Kovesdan wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea. This knob is completely superfluous and
thus should be avoided. One can just add -std to CFLAGS from a port
Makefile. Forced build are also possible without this stuff, you can set
this in /etc/make.conf.
* Gabor Kovesdan wrote:
> I don't think it's a good idea. This knob is completely superfluous and
> thus should be avoided. One can just add -std to CFLAGS from a port
> Makefile. Forced build are also possible without this stuff, you can set
> this in /etc/make.conf.
So how can we be sure
Hi,
I'm proposing the following patch:
--- bsd.port.mk
+++ bsd.port.mk
@@ -2180,6 +2180,10 @@
.endif
.endif
+.if defined(USE_CSTD)
+CFLAGS+= -std=${USE_CSTD}
+.endif
+
# Multiple make jobs support
.if defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS) || defined(MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE)
_MAKE_JOBS=#
I
* Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Placing CFLAGS+= -std=gnu89 would not work?
>
> Would the flag do anything else except adding to CFLAGS?
Well, it could work, but maybe it would be nice to make it compiler
agnostic.
--
Ed Schouten
WWW: http://80386.nl/
pgpoaGOme1njw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Ed Schouten píše v pá 29. 05. 2009 v 14:36 +0200:
> This is why I'm proposing a USE_GNU89 switch, to
> force the ports framework to add -std=gnu89 to the CFLAGS.
Placing CFLAGS+= -std=gnu89 would not work?
Would the flag do anything else except adding to CFLAGS?
--
Pav Lucistnik
Hi folks,
As some of you may have heard, Erwin Lansing (droso) has been helping us
folks from the FreeBSD-Clang project [1] to build an entire ports tree
with Clang.
Even though we're hitting some compiler bugs (crashes, miscompilations,
etc), things have been going very good. We noticed there is
13 matches
Mail list logo
