From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15909 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2017 14:36:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 15885 invoked by uid 89); 12 Jun 2017 14:36:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1089, invest, our, policy X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:36:04 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dKQRn-0003IP-Sx for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 10:36:07 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:47084) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dKQRn-0003IK-Q9; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 10:36:03 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3344 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dKQRn-0006g8-3M; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 10:36:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:36:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83a85d5l4n.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Yao Qi CC: simon.marchi@ericsson.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <86tw3labb0.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Yao Qi on Mon, 12 Jun 2017 08:56:51 +0100) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Remove a few hurdles of compiling with clang Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <1497124689-11842-1-git-send-email-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> <83tw3n5jyk.fsf@gnu.org> <86tw3labb0.fsf@gmail.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg00316.txt.bz2 > From: Yao Qi > Cc: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 08:56:51 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Question to Joel and Pedro: Do we really want to go to these length to > > accommodate clang? What's our policy? > > I'd like to see GDB can be built by clang. What is more, I'd like to > get rid of any unnecessary GNU-specific or GCC assumptions from GDB > tests. It is a good thing to build and test GDB with different compilers. That's not the issue: AFAIU, GDB already builds with clang. The issue is how much effort would we want to invest for that, and what are we willing to give up when using GCC to be able to use other compilers. For example, the proposed patch adds an explicit "-x c++" switch to _all_ compilations, and also tweaks the warning switches. I'm not sure we want GCC builds to be affected so that clang builds could be cleaner. But maybe we have a policy about this which deems these issues acceptable?