On 08/26/2013 03:12, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, Warner Losh wrote:
"If you push gcc out to a port, and you have the 'external compiler'
toolchain support working correctly enough to build with this, why
don't we just push clang out to a port, and be done with it?"
This is a stupid idea. It kills the tightly integrated nature of
FreeBSD. I'd say it is far too radical a departure and opens up a
huge can of "which version of what compiler" nightmare that we've
largely dodged to date because we had one (or maybe two) compilers
in the base system.
I am working towards establishing lang/gcc as _the_ version of GCC
to use for ports.
Today I looked at a couple of those GCC cross-compilers we have in
ports, and I have to admit I am not thrilled. Each of those I saw
copies a lot from (older version of my ports), each has a different
maintainer, each has some additions, and there is little consistency.
Perhaps you could have a look at the fact that lang/gcc is at 4.6.3, and
lang/gcc46 is no more a snapshot but a true release 4.6.4.
IMHO, lang/gcc must be discontinued, or updated to 4.6.4 and lang/gcc46
discontinued ?
Are these the base of 'external compiler' toolchain support? Are
there any plans to increase consistency and reduce redundancy? In
an ideal world, could those become slave ports of lang/gcc?
Gerald
Claude Buisson
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
