Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 13:21:58 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Michael Butler <imb@protected-networks.net>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: gcc compilation broken with SVN r264042 Message-ID: <20140402202158.GA37846@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <307BA2CF-E02A-4D82-B9E5-23AECAEA89DC@FreeBSD.org> References: <533C61B8.7060809@protected-networks.net> <509CAA08-8F00-4ED8-81FF-A51F1ECDC15C@FreeBSD.org> <533C6ABE.2000801@protected-networks.net> <307BA2CF-E02A-4D82-B9E5-23AECAEA89DC@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 08:58:21PM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: > > Well, I wouldn't object to that, but it would be good to fix this - we > still want to be able to build the base system with gcc (or another > compiler), even if we don't encourage it... Who is "we" in "even if we don't encourage it..."? In fact, this is a fairly dumb idea, and *we* should encourage building the base system with as many different compilers as possible. It's called portability and allows one to find bugs that the annointed compiler might miss or actually cause. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140402202158.GA37846>