Re: Fixes necessaries for compile dfly with clang

[Alex Hornung <ahornung@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 17/11/11 07:11, John Marino wrote:
> On 11/17/2011 4:19 AM, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote:
>> DragonFly, FreeBSD and NetBSD has very similar versions of citrus.
>> OpenBSD took a different and simpler aproach. I suggest for interested
>> people, look in the FreeBSD code because they is working with clang and
>> will be more easy discard possible bugs.
> 
> From the little I know of citrus, I was under the impression that nobody
> has worked on it or cared about it (besides perhaps me) in years.
> Anything that serves to update this and be simpler would probably get a
> vote from me.

citrus was completely updated just a year ago - it's far from abandoned.

Cheers,
Alex
> 
>>
>> Other problem is the C++ code (e.g. binutils doesn't compile) but I
>> consider most important now only the problems related to C.
> 
> 
> Well, that's a deal-breaker.
> If the project made a decree that the base compiler languages were
> limited to c-languages, then I would probably advocate clang over gcc in
> the long-term (I know Samuel's argument, and I could provide some
> rebuttal to his concerns).  However, that means we accept C++ in the
> base, and I would like to see the gold linker be able to be a drop-in
> replacement for ld (I have hopes for binutils 2.22).  If clang can't
> property build a fundamental part of the toolchain, it's a non-starter
> in my eyes.
> 
> That said, I have a hard time believing the clang folks would let
> binutils not be buildable.  What's wrong there?
> 
> John
>