Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:52:13 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Kurt Jaeger <lists@c0mplx.org> Cc: toolchain@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: GCC withdraw (was: Re: patch to add AES intrinsics to gcc) Message-ID: <F2129B51-C112-49C3-ABB5-89562C23F21A@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20130823111647.GT2951@home.opsec.eu> References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com> <105E26EE-8471-49D3-AB57-FBE2779CF8D0@FreeBSD.org> <5217413A.9080105@passap.ru> <20130823111647.GT2951@home.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 23, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! >=20 >>> I have a patch that I intend to commit before the 10.0 code >>> slush that removes GCC and libstdc++ from the default build on >>> platforms where clang is the system compiler. We definitely don't >>> want to be supporting our 6-year-old versions of these for the >>> lifetime of the 10.x branch. >>=20 >> Isn't it a POLA violation? >>=20 >> As for me I expect something like this: >> . 9.x gcc default and clang in base; >> . 10.x clang default and gcc in base; >> . 11.x gcc withdraw. >=20 > If the 150 ports that only work with gcc, all work with a ports > gcc and do not need the gcc from base, would the following be OK ? >=20 > - 9.x gcc default and clang in base; > - 10.x clang default and gcc in ports; No. That breaks non x86 architecutres. gcc must remain in base for now, = or there's no bootstrap ability. Nobody has done the lifting to cleanly = integrate gcc as a port into buildworld, althogh Brooks' work gets us = most of the way there. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F2129B51-C112-49C3-ABB5-89562C23F21A>