Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:57:42 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: "Sam Fourman Jr." <sfourman@gmail.com>, toolchain@freebsd.org, David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org>, Boris Samorodov <bsam@passap.ru>, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: GCC withdraw Message-ID: <201308291057.43027.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <DC41B4BD-159A-408B-804A-0230F3E0E52B@FreeBSD.org> References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com> <CAOFF%2BZ3vbOgMO7T-BKZnhKte6=rFoGcdYcft5kpAgNH2my1JKg@mail.gmail.com> <DC41B4BD-159A-408B-804A-0230F3E0E52B@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday, August 24, 2013 7:19:22 am David Chisnall wrote: > On 24 Aug 2013, at 11:30, "Sam Fourman Jr." <sfourman@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So I vote, let's not give ourselves the burden of "lugging" dead weight in > > base > > for another 5 years. (in 2017 do we still want to be worrying about gcc in > > base?) > > Perhaps more to the point, in 2017 do we want to be responsible for > maintaining a fork of a 2007 release of gcc and libstdc++? This is a red herring and I'd wish you'd stop bringing it up constantly. GCC has not needed constant care and feeding in the 7.x/8.x/9.x branches and it won't need it in 10.x either. I have not seen any convincing argument as to why leaving GCC in the base for 10.x impedes anything. Because clang isn't sufficient for so many non-x86 platforms we can't really start using clang-specific features yet anyway. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201308291057.43027.jhb>