ricardojdfilipe at gmail.com
Mon Oct 11 18:08:16 CDT 2010
2010/10/12 Austin English <austinenglish at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Charles Davis <cdavis at mymail.mines.edu> wrote:
>> On 10/11/10 8:54 AM, Jeff Cook wrote:
>>> Just wondering if anyone has experimented building WINE with LLVM
>>> instead of GCC.
>> I have. It's how I got involved in LLVM in the first place :). My very
>> first post to cfe-dev (the Clang development mailing list) was, in fact,
>> asking about building Wine with Clang.
>>> If so, what results were gotten?
>> After I fixed Clang (yes, I fixed Clang; I even have commit access to
>> their repository), it was able to build Wine, but the resulting Wine
>> didn't behave quite right compared to GCC-compiled Wine. Clang and LLVM
>> have come a long way since then--this was about a year ago, just so you
>> know--so I'm going to try again right now.
>> You can ask Austin English, too. He builds Wine with Clang and sends
>> patches to fix the warnings Clang reports.
>>> My understanding is that WINE tries hard
>>> to be pretty portable and non-GCC-specific, so I would expect good
> Charles would be the one to thank for most of the fixes (to Clang and
> Wine). Henri Verbeet and Ricardo Filipe sent quite a few patches as
> well. All of them can be found here:
> For its current status, my test scripts builds wine daily with gcc and
> clang and submits test results. You can compare them here (for today's
> look for 'ae-ub1004' for the plain gcc versus 'ae-ub1004-clang' for
> clang. Currently, gcc fails 8 tests for me, clang fails 15.
to be clear, my patches and henri's were mostly cleanups and wine bug
fixes found with clang's analysis tool.
not really fixes to build with llvm/clang.
More information about the wine-devel