From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 21 15:14:05 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 564FE1065696 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:14:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mail25@bzerk.org) Received: from ei.bzerk.org (tunnel490.ipv6.xs4all.nl [IPv6:2001:888:10:1ea::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C175A8FC0A for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:14:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ei.bzerk.org (BOFH@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ei.bzerk.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id nBLFCoAk060593; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:12:50 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mail25@bzerk.org) Received: (from bulk@localhost) by ei.bzerk.org (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id nBLFCoXl060592; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:12:50 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mail25@bzerk.org) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:12:49 +0100 From: Ruben de Groot To: alex Message-ID: <20091221151249.GA60183@ei.bzerk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ruben de Groot , alex , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <4B2F5973.8050003@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B2F5973.8050003@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on ei.bzerk.org X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (ei.bzerk.org [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:14:03 +0100 (CET) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ld-elf related problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:14:05 -0000 On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:18:11PM +1100, alex typed: > b. f. wrote: > >Our base system compiler suite is stuck at a patched version of gcc > >4.2 because of licensing issues > Thats absolutely *ridiculous* that we have to use stone age development > tools because of stupid and trivial license politics. - Calling it ridiculous does not make the licencing problem go away. - The base-system compiler is there to compile the base system. - There's plenty of development tools in ports. - gcc 4.2.x isn't exactly "stone age". (I'm still administering some HP-UX boxes with gcc 2.95 on them. It's old, but compiles pretty workable code.) > Is this the reason why people are pushing for llvm, just to avoid the > GPL license type of later releases of the gnu c compiler and tools? > Thats really sad. llvm has a long way to go before it can be considered > a worthy competitor against gcc. I think it is, and I share your concern. But really, the gcc people made their choice and we have to live with it. > Linux is going to leave us for dust at this rate. So? It's just an OS. Some will switch to linux and try to make that better. Thats evolution.