Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:00:19 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org>, David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org>, toolchain@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "Sam Fourman Jr." <sfourman@gmail.com>, Boris Samorodov <bsam@passap.ru> Subject: Re: GCC withdraw Message-ID: <DC5B34F6-5303-4D2B-B480-74F0F0679EE3@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <201308291057.43027.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com> <CAOFF%2BZ3vbOgMO7T-BKZnhKte6=rFoGcdYcft5kpAgNH2my1JKg@mail.gmail.com> <DC41B4BD-159A-408B-804A-0230F3E0E52B@FreeBSD.org> <201308291057.43027.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 29, 2013, at 8:57 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Saturday, August 24, 2013 7:19:22 am David Chisnall wrote: >> On 24 Aug 2013, at 11:30, "Sam Fourman Jr." <sfourman@gmail.com> = wrote: >>=20 >>> So I vote, let's not give ourselves the burden of "lugging" dead = weight in >>> base >>> for another 5 years. (in 2017 do we still want to be worrying about = gcc in >>> base?) >>=20 >> Perhaps more to the point, in 2017 do we want to be responsible for >> maintaining a fork of a 2007 release of gcc and libstdc++? >=20 > This is a red herring and I'd wish you'd stop bringing it up = constantly. > GCC has not needed constant care and feeding in the 7.x/8.x/9.x = branches > and it won't need it in 10.x either. I have not seen any convincing > argument as to why leaving GCC in the base for 10.x impedes anything. > Because clang isn't sufficient for so many non-x86 platforms we can't > really start using clang-specific features yet anyway. Agreed. Gcc is still an absolute requirement on all non-x86 platforms = (including arm) due to the issues with clang. Some of these issues are = bugs in specific things (arm) that keep coming up (and keep getting = fixed), while others are more severe (sparc64 has no clang support, and = no way to generate a self-hosting system in the absence of a bootstrap = gcc in the base, even with the external toolchain support). gcc will absolutely be in the base for 10. That's the long-standing = agreement that we've had, and breaking it now at the 11th hour is going = to totally screw up !x86 platforms and really piss off a lot of = developers for no good reason. The time is long since past to change = this plan. This is the plan of record, and we need to stick to it: 10: clang default, where possible, gcc in base otherwise 11: clang default, full external toolchain support, including = self-hosting So the time for voting and carping has long since past. Warner=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DC5B34F6-5303-4D2B-B480-74F0F0679EE3>