-----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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | GPG key ID: A36A937A Jabber: hircus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | IRC: hircus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx () 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----- -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
