From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Sun Nov 8 20:46:24 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EECA2960D; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 20:46:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chmeeedalf@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BF2F17CA; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 20:46:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chmeeedalf@gmail.com) Received: by ioc74 with SMTP id 74so102561358ioc.2; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 12:46:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=CZJF9kMfHM5d9b0uIwOA0OlOZuGntFzRm1ImZhi8ypA=; b=ge7k61cZz/7kxhsKCHdKUphsKCb3oehg1Vuq+uyb6jeS52ZbkZIyenCjID7M8jaBrv gWxUTSLPWdB71iLB9Rb3og3hTlRaMcgJ5wewrl9tuegA9+TPMWbY7HwGMMpFVxGLwztn iu3krQawWdIMEpMWEx89fJEtMBSpAwNBJ6uo6/7F12t6ICGYxwxCmxg8+Biep+GZ9i4p TINa+sFL2YrHj45slWfq6IeozQZ892KNsP6G2JU77IL+tNlwkeAuQjgbbR3l43rsY3eZ F1kmipRmRWqkWBWqAMAn+uwI+meSdG+cXP5EB4VA51do9gtvIFOf69woP80hCdpierDM vXLw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alumni_cwru_edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=CZJF9kMfHM5d9b0uIwOA0OlOZuGntFzRm1ImZhi8ypA=; b=JurekWZLr5bmTbENn9N9V7AfWeSgQRYR2ZHV8oK2G5Y4XLLJJ86QPQKA3hKMd3QYlm yXvnmFaXXFma35KF/7MZeR2zK4vILKg5AOefNT5qWJ3qp2phOrjyHymTtouBPM80tytO zgynaBKOvmgDoMrLv7A6yV6+V3KwePZOvYVD9JHnUa56mdVRnoBRcZK1JwK7wAQDJE1N YcgraWJWUhcX6n5LEz0ThVHJauzV6M65uIckqiMI4YlZzs1APtWgTAyEVfNH4ZYWOA4+ upobN8dMZc1UIlwulsO0n7blnUglphXIrllvHsvywM33mF9QtLg0mSoeNfC/XXs2Qtdu ncUg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.34.149 with SMTP id i143mr22034860ioi.157.1447015583582; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 12:46:23 -0800 (PST) Sender: chmeeedalf@gmail.com Received: by 10.36.41.138 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 12:46:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151108155501.GA1901@alchemy.franken.de> References: <563A5893.1030607@freebsd.org> <2AAC0EF3-528B-476F-BA9C-CDC3004465D0@bsdimp.com> <20151108155501.GA1901@alchemy.franken.de> Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 14:46:23 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ixa9KLH6gn8vWlfQjV4UfizTaEU Message-ID: Subject: Re: Sparc64 doesn't care about you, and you shouldn't care about Sparc64 From: Justin Hibbits To: Marius Strobl Cc: Warner Losh , sbruno@freebsd.org, sparc64@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2015 20:46:24 -0000 On 11/8/15, Marius Strobl wrote: > As for getting forward, the FreeBSD Software License Policy > (https://www.freebsd.org/internal/software-license.html) > specifically allows for existing GPLv2 licensed software in > the FreeBSD source tree to be updated to GPLv3 licensed one. > The initial, longer draft of this policy posted by brooks@ to > developers@ even explicitly mentioned key technologies such > as toolchains of other licenses being allowed when no mature > BSD-licensed alternative exists. So I propose just that: > Let's upgrade binutils and GCC in base to recent versions. > Seriously. That way we 1) don't need to get external toolchain > support into shape, 2) don't need to solve the chicken-and-egg > problem of getting a toolchain onto a machine installed from > a distribution built with an external toolchain and 3) once > clang becomes mature on additional architectures, we have an > upgrade path. Don't get me wrong, I'm only proposing that > for !arm and !x86. > As a side note: A while back I talked to grehan@ and marcel@ > regarding the immaturities of clang and - as expected -, a > GPL'ed toolchain just is no problem for either NetApp or > Juniper as the binaries they ship don't include the toolchain > itself. With the possible exception of the current incarnation > of SCO which apparently sells a FreeBSD-based OS likely having > a system compiler, for the same reason I can't think of why a > GPLv3 licensed toolchain would matter for any of the commercial > downstream consumers of FreeBSD. Thus, I really can't understand > all that aggression regarding making FreeBSD 11 clang-only. > I 100% agree with you on this. If we can update binutils to the latest and greatest, I believe powerpc64 would be able to work with clang. I've backported several patches, with IBM's permission, to binutils for handling new relocations, etc. However, not all patches are straight forward, and currently we're missing something, which is causing odd segfaults in ld(1), when linking as(1). No other binary, only as(1). I've tried looking through it, but the binutils code is a mess. I'm sure the bug that's getting hit was fixed with newer binutils, but have had a very hard time trying to test with it. TL;DR, let's update binutils at the very least, and gcc if it makes sense. We shouldn't be relying on external toolchain for some archs, and internal for others. It completely snubs already second class citizens. Just look at the various build failures we've had because to some people All The World is clang/x86. - Justin