Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:58:15 +0200 From: Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: David Naylor <naylor.b.david@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Compiling FreeBSD with GCC 4.3+ Message-ID: <200904211758.15613.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> In-Reply-To: <200904211737.54778.naylor.b.david@gmail.com> References: <200904202148.42415.naylor.b.david@gmail.com> <200904211032.04835.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> <200904211737.54778.naylor.b.david@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 17:37:50 David Naylor wrote: > On Tuesday 21 April 2009 10:32:04 Mel Flynn wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > On Monday 20 April 2009 21:48:39 David Naylor wrote: > > > There has been an article recently published by phoronix > > > (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=pcbsd_vs_kubuntu&nu > > >m= 1) that compares PC-BSD to Kubuntu. Kubuntu uses GCC 4.3.3 compared > > > to FreeBSD's GCC 4.2.2. There is a considerable performance difference > > > between the two OS's, the article contributes this difference to the > > > compiler. > > > > Nice shot in the dark, since except the calculations a lot of these are > > influenced by "journaled FS vs stock UFS". > > I know, benchmarking anything but the simplest things are influenced by too > many factors. Pity it doesn't provide an unbiased comparison of FreeBSD > and Linux. That and comparing apples and pears as default configured fruit, don't usually work well. Of course it appeals to the end user "which fruit is healthier". > > > In order to check if this is so (and to get the speed improvements of > > > GCC 4.3+) one needs to compile the ports (and preferable world/kernel > > > as well) with GCC 4.3+. > > > > It's license is incompatible with world/kernel. > > What type of incompatibility. I know FreeBSD has reservations about GPLv3 > (I personally don't understand why everyone cannot be friends and use BSD > Licenses). So is this a policy incompatibility or a legal one (i.e. would > it be 'illegal' for me to use GCC 4.3+ to compile world/kernel, as an > end-user/consumer of FreeBSD). I assume the same discussion applies to > binutils. Policy. Only legal issue in FreeBSD for the end user is WITH_IDEA. > > That said, install > > lang/gcc43 and set CC/CXX for ports. World/kernel would be a lot harder. > > Maybe setting WITHOUT_GCC in /etc/src.conf and setting CC/CXX would work, > > but there's quite a few modifications to gcc that aren't in ports > > lang/gcc, so I have my doubts. > > I suppose it would be nice if there was an easy way to use an out-of-source > compiler in FreeBSD. Like set PORTS_COMPILER=gcc43 and the port will > installed and used... One may have dreams. cat <<'EOF' >> /etc/make.conf .if !empty(.CURDIR:M/usr/ports/*) CC=/usr/local/bin/gcc43 CXX=/usr/local/bin/g++43 .endif EOF Pretty close, huh? > > > Is there an easy way to set this up and does anyone know the > > > compatibility of world/kernel/ports with GCC 4.3+? > > > > > > Also has anyone tried this and benchmarked the result? > > > > Not me, but be sure to stick around for the new non-gcc compiler coming > > to a FreeBSD near you. And with the work done by Marcel Molenaar on > > gpart, hopefully we can have ZFS and gjournal as choices in the > > installer. > > You mean llvm, waiting patiently. I suppose my suggestion above will > become even more important (at least for compiling ports) since it will be > a while till llvm has decent c++ support. Yeah, I don't know how that's gonna work if llvm is ready for base, but no c++. I guess we'll have to sit out g++ 4.2 for a while. If you're in the position to do so, I'd do their benchmarks with ZFS and see how much difference that already makes. -- Mel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200904211758.15613.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions>