On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 03:03:45PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > O. Hartmann wrote: > > Ivan Voras wrote: > > ... > > > >> > >> OTOH if the goal is to measure "operating system" performance, this > >> must also include the compiler, libraries and all. (for example, what > >> does Solaris default to nowadays? I think it ships with gcc but not as > >> default). The hold on gcc 4.3 in FreeBSD is, after all, political > >> (licencing). > > > > This is very bad to read :-( > > I agree. GPL 3 is a bit hard on the non-GPL systems (i.e. harder than > GPL 2).
There are several things people can do to mitigate the issues here. They can work to make it easier to completely replace the base compiler with a port. It seems not unlikely that FreeBSD distributions like PC-BSD will eventually do this. They can track GCC enhancements and when those enhancements are actually compelling make a case for an upgrade. We haven't closed the door on that possibility, but the bar is quite high given the number of FreeBSD customers who have a "no GPLv3 source in house, no exceptions!" policy. They can work on LLVM support and integration. Apple is putting a lot of effort into both llvm-gcc and clang. From the outside, it looks like they consider that their future. As such, it may well be ours. -- Brooks
pgpX42bY3VbYr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
