Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:37:43 +0100 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> To: Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org>, "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Removal of ICC (intel compiler) bits from mk Message-ID: <65F17C45-55C1-4349-A4D1-A3D6AD0D9A80@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimCdcBvgBt1sr2y1_=6fOEGWFFxa=hRwQ5vzyhT@mail.gmail.com> References: <E604222D-A731-4F0E-BF21-FF7F4306A899@gmail.com> <AANLkTimCdcBvgBt1sr2y1_=6fOEGWFFxa=hRwQ5vzyhT@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 Aug 2010, at 18:18, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> I've been chatting with the ICC ex-users and they seem to be ok with = the removal of the ICC bits from share/mk and other places. >> The reason is that it doesn't work and no one has volunteered to fix = it for many years. This seems to indicate that the interest in ICC is = low. >> If there's anyone against this, speak now or forever be silent. :-) >=20 > Later versions of icc are more gcc compliant aren't they? If so, > wouldn't this also be a non-issue to remove the bits, or are there > still some incompatibilities between gcc and icc that are worth > noting? I really don't know how compatible is the latest icc because no one ever = updated the ports version. This is actually a hint that no one really = uses this anymore. Regards, -- Rui Paulo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?65F17C45-55C1-4349-A4D1-A3D6AD0D9A80>