freebsd-ports VS linux

Agreed.

I don't think the PR reviewer is calling the author in the example, and provided useful info, pointing out the relevant example.

Also, the author notes:

> The very first comment in the thread from a reviewer was simply only one word: “Why?” - That’s it, just one word. Why did I do this? Why work with such old hardware? Why is the sky blue? How the hell am I to know the context of what they’re referring to when asking a one-worded question?

Its clear from https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/pull/189#discussion... that the author is asking why is this line needed, something a PR author should always be able to justify.

From https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/blob/main/UPDATING:

KDE: Update KDE Plasma Desktop to 5.26 · freebsd/freebsd-ports@d06d26f | https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=d06d26f8c45e468021b1ec1def42fb1ce600a3dc

Say you really want to pin to Apache 2.5.54. Create a new empty repo, add a www/apache24 dir, and copy the files from that version of the ports tree into it.

They have not been stable

https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/commit/a43ec88422ee...

As for announcements: how would this information be delivered to you? :) Major breakages that impact users are expected to tracked in Ports (not pkgs) through review of /usr/ports/CHANGES and /usr/ports/UPDATING. If a port gets renamed (moved), you'll find it mentioned there, or possibly in /usr/ports/MOVED (not human-readable). You can view those on the GitHub mirror if you wish, since not everyone builds from Ports: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports

at https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/tree/main/chinese/chinese-calendar (for the port to FreeBSD) the files and Makefile are not too complex.

> Torvalds answered that, while he used to find problems in the LLVM Clang compiler, now he's more likely to find problems with GCC instead; he now builds with Clang.

https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues is our bug tracker for known issues (a few are tracked in llvm's issue tracker). Bug reporters and future kernel hackers wanted!

As I mentioned on mastodon, there's lots of bugs still to be fixed everywhere, but even if we don't fix them, providing competition in the toolchain space has been worth it to users.

Linux builds on clang after a decade of dedicated effort to make it happen, and that is with clang overall being comparatively similar to gcc (e.g clang implements many gcc extensions): https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/wiki/Project-histor...

We got plenty of bugs for building the kernel with LLVM, if you're looking for tasks, pick one!

There's an semi-official github[0] for this.

AFAICT from the issue, Clang and binutils/LLVM tools work fine with no patches for the mainstream archs and when not trying to be super-fancy with custom flags. The more non-mainstream one goes with arch or flags the more likely one will run into something.

[0] https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues

If you have any reproducible issues please file them here: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues

See if you can build your distro's config. make LLVM=1 localmodconfig olddefconfig bzImage. Any warnings? Any warnings not in the issue tracker? If not, pick one from the issue tracker and see if you can reproduce it. Note: lots of issues are tagged by target ISA, so you'll need to get familiar with cross compiling (setting ARCH= and CROSS_COMPILE=.

It's a pipeline; clang starts, hands off to LLVM.

For a compilation to object file from source code, the vast majority of time for most translation units is spent in the front end of the pipeline, not the middle, or backend.

See also my first plot: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1086#issueco...