-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 09:52 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Ben Cotton wrote: > > == Summary == > > Fedora has historically forced packages to build with GCC unless > > the > > upstream project for the package only supported Clang/LLVM. This > > change proposal replaces that policy with one where compiler > > selection > > for Fedora follows the package's upstream preferences. > > > > == Owner == > > * Name: Jeff Law > > * Email: law@xxxxxxxxxx > > I am opposed to this change. Chromium and Firefox build fine with > GCC. I > think that a distribution should be built with a consistent toolchain > wherever possible. > > Last I checked, there were several reasons why GCC is preferred over > Clang/LLVM in Fedora. And if that should ever change (or have changed > already), then switching the systemwide default (reversing the rules, > i.e., > using GCC only for those packages that do not build with Clang) > should be > envisioned. But as far as I know, that is not the case at this time, > considering runtime performance, security features, etc. Since I was not sure if clang is supported by Red Hat Toolchain team in the same way as GCC, I've asked this in my reply. If they are supported in the same manner (maintainers are as well developers in upstream and work full-time on this, development versions are being tested in rawhide early, etc…) I do not see a reason to disallow that. - From the security features, do you have some specifics in mind? I saw only from our CFLAGS/LDFLAGS, only the -fstack-clash-protection is not yet supported, but it is being worked on (already in trunk, though only for x86). > I do not see why we should allow yet another special case for > Firefox, nor > why we should let random packages make their own choice of compiler > and risk > running into hidden binary incompatibilities. We have a system > compiler for > a reason. Well, if they are supported in the same way as GCC (in the sense as it is not just being packaged in Fedora, but developed and properly tested in Fedora), why not to declare that we have 2 system compilers? Regarding hidden binary incompatibilities, those are the bugs that needs to be fixed so I assume if maintainers of clang make commitment, they will have to fix it because Clang will be 2nd system compiler. > Kevin Kofler > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - -- Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEcwgJ58gsbV5f5dMcEV1auJxcHh4FAl7Z/oQACgkQEV1auJxc Hh6eZg//QsO9aE7sAXDqJwRee/QkG2uJ9kbxFVd96hugDh/HMXqxEoEdQuhxxVA3 jUWlcd94zxqrY9B7oAp2eJIiaCbo3sXv9iHaJUNdPvueNASoLSLJZ2juwAb7tDzp dy2joMNieLbr5z4v73Ri7KOhLQ+LSJv228OAuYzcw7rxMYV0QpKcG9Qc8rSIhXyi VA131keQ+B3Kfphqek0EvPGWNxyWmAFI+fyOmpTKVQHgixmbrKYsApRUzz0tYZtz VYQZS1XPnxEjk09dwgguXWwarnNMiZ1J5irwjR0OmqIVQAnGGhrBPYg9j6rCBc1n rwRhyBEo+jFFqrZ+ue/OKDYxlBd8aTlXndzShhqeHEeE0ihZrP1z4TNkjSb2hIpL lxPVAH7v3bfcY45SMvgZpxHcQTs9wZ6ggPaAEgi873oOTHgEA8Dd93lbdCSzE4uP yQWF9UxU0mVAojyp1PtSU3atECUAYJPWnfeUKme+2UP67P05spUNs6oU1MRB/JwB nEsPA+fVjrNGupTKijN2bkI4qXcSdX82lEgYLKL5jTtXbgCF+wewgpobOsnHWNqf zMCcODDzfgDMiaZQntfZxUXzVrW4zv6WezsE5fAbLAtpZXKGyg6kDj8IrfdyJJ9L TVrwRYMpPdUGEJUkrB+te3CZY1VRPO/aqA0vvQlEyv5/0bQVEX4= =LA6Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
