Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:22:09 -0400 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th Message-ID: <20120912072209.65bc5e3d@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <505055F7.9020809@FreeBSD.org> References: <20120910211207.GC64920@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20120911104518.GF37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911120649.GA52235@freebsd.org> <20120911122122.GJ37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911123833.GA54483@freebsd.org> <848C813E-E6EC-4FAF-9374-B5583A077404@cederstrand.dk> <505055F7.9020809@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:29:27 -1000 Doug Barton articulated: > What we need to do is what I and others have been asking to do for > years. We need to designate a modern version of gcc (no less than 4.6) > as the official default ports compiler, and rework whatever is needed > to support this. Fortunately, that goal is much more easily achieved > than fixing ports to build and run with clang. (It's harder than it > sounds because there are certain key libs that define some paths > depending on what compiler they were built with, but still easier > than dealing with clang in the short term.) That is a well thought out, highly intuitive and completely doable idea. Therefore it will be ignored. It seems that the FreeBSD authors are more concerned with the licensing language of GCC than in getting a fully functioning port's compiler into the FreeBSD base system. Thank God that everyone isn't as narrow minded as that. Imagine if we all hated people simple because of their skin color or religion ... or do we? -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________ It would save me a lot of time if you just gave up and went mad now.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120912072209.65bc5e3d>