Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:55:40 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "re@FreeBSD.org Engineering Team" <re@FreeBSD.org>, current@FreeBSD.org, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com>, toolchain@FreeBSD.org, Julian Elischer <julian@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: patch to add AES intrinsics to gcc Message-ID: <C01D8EF9-4ECE-4AFF-8469-E44C0DAAD788@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <1377261014.1111.43.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com> <105E26EE-8471-49D3-AB57-FBE2779CF8D0@FreeBSD.org> <CAE-m3X324rbdP_C=az4eO-EkMcR-yFAeRG7S4q%2BMUsnMezGddw@mail.gmail.com> <5CE4B5FA-9DA0-45E4-8D67-161E0829FE6B@FreeBSD.org> <52173C8D.20608@freebsd.org> <D879DDDA-EF9D-470A-A82E-04E83DB2A7E4@FreeBSD.org> <1377261014.1111.43.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 23, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 12:06 +0100, David Chisnall wrote: >> On 23 Aug 2013, at 11:42, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> wrote: >>=20 >>> no, I believe we have said that 10 would ship with clang by default. = NO mention was made about gcc being absent, and I am uncomfortable with = taking that step yet. Having gcc just present, will not hurt you.. even = after it is gone we will need to support those who will be replacing = clang with newer versions of gcc in hteir own products. >>=20 >> The plan is not to delete gcc from the tree, it is to disable = building gcc by default when clang is the system compiler. If you are = building products then you are perfectly at liberty to set WITH_GCC=3Dyes = in your src.conf. >>=20 >> Our gcc is from 2007. It has no C11, no C++11 support. It has bugs = in its atomic generation so you can't use it sensibly without lots of = inline assembly (which it doesn't support for newer architectures) for = multithreaded things. >>=20 >> Our libstdc++ is ancient and doesn't work with modern C++ codebases. = Putting them in the base system means that people will use them. If = anyone wants them to remain, then speak now and this will be taken as = your volunteering to: >>=20 >> - Maintain our forks of both gcc and libstdc++ >> - Handle every single PR that is filed by people using these >>=20 >> If you are willing to do this, then that's great. If not, then you = are asking other people to support ancient codebases that they are not = using. >>=20 >> David >>=20 >=20 > I don't understand, you start by pointing out that gcc will still be = in > the tree and usable, then you go on to point out that it it won't be > supported or maintained unless someone volunteers to do that, and you > seem to be doing your best to discourage anyone from volunteering. > Doesn't that sort of moot the point that the source isn't being = deleted? If it is in the tree it's gotta work. And it has to be in the tree for = !x86 architectures. So on or off for x86 doesn't really add to the load = at all, and the C++/C11 stuff is a red herring. If it isn't cc, then = people wanting clang by default won't care... And besides, ports aren't completely ready to kill it, so it has to work = for them. Warner=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C01D8EF9-4ECE-4AFF-8469-E44C0DAAD788>