4 ms·

"FreeBSD 11.4-RELEASE Announcement [...] Some of the highlights: The clang, llvm, lld, lldb, and compiler-rt utilities as well as libc++ have been up

"FreeBSD 11.4-RELEASE Announcement [...] Some of the highlights: The clang, llvm, lld, lldb, and compiler-rt utilities as well as libc++ have been updated to upstream version 10.0.0. [...]" I found this interesting. Seems like FreeBSD is more pragmatic than OpenBSD. They are using the latest and greatest llvm/clang series. For license related reasons OpenBSD is stuck on an older version of gcc. I understand that OpenBSD has now _also_ become stuck on an older clang/llvm due to license changes there too. In the long run, not upgrading the compiler is going to hurt OpenBSD a lot, I think. A lot of mitigations are now built in the compiler and languages (e.g. C++) are accumulating features at quite a fast pace. I was wondering if users of OpenBSD have thoughts on the above. Do you think its a bit deal? What is the solution? How does OpenBSD not get left behind as a platform? Or is this older clang/llvm issue only relevant for the core system and pkgs would have latest clang/llvm? P.S. It seems llvm on pkgs is still 8.0.x https://github.com/openbsd/ports/tree/master/devel/llvm https://github.com/openbsd/ports/tree/master/devel/llvm

unixhero 6y ago
Sounds like the winds of the fork are blaring. Trim the sails!
psychoslave 6y ago
I think that that sticking to some principles is great. Not dropping them at the first difficulty is what proves that your are indeed sticking to it. OpenBSD is not dying, and even grab the interest of notable figures such as Carmack recently. Not everybody is running after the last shiny feature. I don't mean that in a condescending way: there is room for all approaches.
anthk 6y ago
You seem to not know OpenBSD a lot. They backported and patched a lot of stuff into GCC 4.2. Clang will get the same threatament.
- sidkshatriya 6y ago
  I’m aware they maintain forks and patches for many packages. However development resources are always precious! Now openbsd needs to devote them to backporting from rapidly evolving llvm. Effort that could have been spent elsewhere. Also note that backporting may be unfeasible in some cases I’m guessing because changes to latest llvm/clang may be under the new unacceptable license. Openbsd might need to make their own modifications. I’m not making a value judgement whether it was good or not to not accept new llvm license. Just making an observation that this is going to be a drag on the project.
trasz 6y ago
LLVM in packages is 8.0 because something (Mesa, I think) doesn't work with anything newer.

unixhero 6y ago

Sounds like the winds of the fork are blaring. Trim the sails!

psychoslave 6y ago

I think that that sticking to some principles is great. Not dropping them at the first difficulty is what proves that your are indeed sticking to it. OpenBSD is not dying, and even grab the interest of notable figures such as Carmack recently. Not everybody is running after the last shiny feature. I don't mean that in a condescending way: there is room for all approaches.

anthk 6y ago

You seem to not know OpenBSD a lot. They backported and patched a lot of stuff into GCC 4.2. Clang will get the same threatament.

sidkshatriya 6y ago
I’m aware they maintain forks and patches for many packages. However development resources are always precious! Now openbsd needs to devote them to backporting from rapidly evolving llvm. Effort that could have been spent elsewhere. Also note that backporting may be unfeasible in some cases I’m guessing because changes to latest llvm/clang may be under the new unacceptable license. Openbsd might need to make their own modifications. I’m not making a value judgement whether it was good or not to not accept new llvm license. Just making an observation that this is going to be a drag on the project.

trasz 6y ago

LLVM in packages is 8.0 because something (Mesa, I think) doesn't work with anything newer.