On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 17:18 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Hello, > > This summer, during the Google Summer of Code (GSoC), we have been > working to provide a way to rebuild the archive with a non-gcc compiler > (in our case: clang). > > Our project's intent is not to change the default compiler, just use a > secondary compiler to generate more errors or warnings for package > maintainers to be aware of. In most cases, keeping both compilers happy > would result in higher quality code, something I think we can all get > behind. [...] > We should also make the following assumption -- the CC / CXX compiler > will accept gcc compatible arguments, with only very minor changes that > are gcc compatible as well (such as using -O3 rather then the > meaningless -O6, etc). The clang compiler, for example, considers > incompatible arguments with gcc a bug. [...] Are all alternate compilers expected to implement gcc extensions? Must the code be changed to use appropriate '#ifdef __GNUC__' guards? (And what happens the next time gcc adds a new extension...?) If a package fails to build with an alternate compiler (that is, it correctly *uses* the compiler, but the compiler reports a fatal error), is that considered a bug, and what severity does it have? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Albert Einstein
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part