Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 15:51:58 +0400 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: "Sam Fourman Jr." <sfourman@gmail.com> Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org, Boris Samorodov <bsam@passap.ru>, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: GCC withdraw Message-ID: <20130824115158.GA88999@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <CAOFF%2BZ3vbOgMO7T-BKZnhKte6=rFoGcdYcft5kpAgNH2my1JKg@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com> <105E26EE-8471-49D3-AB57-FBE2779CF8D0@FreeBSD.org> <5217413A.9080105@passap.ru> <20130823111647.GT2951@home.opsec.eu> <521745F2.8050607@passap.ru> <CAOFF%2BZ3vbOgMO7T-BKZnhKte6=rFoGcdYcft5kpAgNH2my1JKg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 06:30:24AM -0400, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: > > 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 ? > > > > > > - 9.x gcc default and clang in base; > > > - 10.x clang default and gcc in ports; > > > > Well, we write rules and we brake them. ;-) > > > > Just say that we know we brake them but it's inevitable because... > > And go futher. > > > > I am not a developer, just a user, so I am not versed in all of the > issues but I > would REALLY like to see gcc moved to ports for 10.x > > In my opinion this just needs to happen, if ports break, we deal with that > on a case by case basis. Oh, I remember. mplayer on i386 can't be builded witch clang -- clang don't understand inlined asm.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130824115158.GA88999>