On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 04:11:08PM +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
> Anyway, Ian has reminded me that I'm getting stuck in sidetracks, so here's
> an executive summary of what I'm ACTUALLY proposing:
>
> - On platforms where clang is cc, don't build libstdc++, make libc++ the
> default. Provide l
>Subject: Re: GCC withdraw
>From: Warner Losh
>Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:00:19 -0600
> Gcc is still an absolute requirement on all non-x86 platforms (including arm)
> due to the issues with clang. Some of these issues are bugs in specific
> things (arm) that keep coming up (and keep getting fix
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 08:33:21AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2013, at 18:44, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > default every time, that we're telling people not to use, won't help with
> > that...
> >
> > This is your worst argument as clang is known to take far longer than GCC
> > to bu
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 06:38:41AM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
>
> On 30 Aug 2013, at 08:56, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
>
> > ... then people wanting to compile the base system with gcc/g++ ...
>
>
> I'm still curious *why* some people want this?
>
Buildworld completes in 1/4th the amount of ti
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:11 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2013, at 15:41, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > So my take away from this is that you have no plans to support any
> platform that
> > doesn't support clang as you just expect ia64 and sparc64 to die and not
> be
> > present in 11.0.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 07:39 -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> > I had a long, rambling reply to this that corrected many of the factual
> errors made in it. But why bother. You have your world view, it doesn't
> match what people are doing today and
Only a few comments in reply to avoid banging my head against a brick wall and
then I'm done:
On Friday, August 30, 2013 3:33:21 am David Chisnall wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2013, at 18:44, John Baldwin wrote:
> > Also, unless you plan on desupporting all non-x86 platforms, you _still_
> > have to do al
On 08/30/13 00:35, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2013, at 08:18, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>> As far as I'm concerned we can even slate it for
>> "possible removal in 10.2-- if clang has proven up to the task"
> I would be happy to ship gcc, as long as:
>
> - It's explicitly marked as deprecate
On 30 Aug 2013, at 15:53, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> So the real driver here is switching to libc++. Is there really no way
> at all to use it with gcc? If, even with hacking, we could arrange that
> to work then it seems that all of our problems would go away.
If we can make our g++ compile C++1
On 30 Aug 2013, at 15:41, John Baldwin wrote:
> So my take away from this is that you have no plans to support any platform
> that
> doesn't support clang as you just expect ia64 and sparc64 to die and not be
> present in 11.0. That may be the best path, but I've certainly not seen that
> goal
On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 07:39 -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> I had a long, rambling reply to this that corrected many of the factual
> errors made in it. But why bother. You have your world view, it doesn't match
> what people are doing today and this mismatch is going to cause people pain
> and suff
I had a long, rambling reply to this that corrected many of the factual errors
made in it. But why bother. You have your world view, it doesn't match what
people are doing today and this mismatch is going to cause people pain and
suffering in the embedded world far beyond what you think. And you
I've been reading this thread and must confess that I'm a little confused
about what exactly is being discussed.
* I presume we've all agreed that "clang" is installed by default in FreeBSD-10.
* I presume everyone agrees that "cc" is "clang" in FreeBSD-10.
* There obviously needs to be a "gcc"
On 30 Aug 2013, at 08:56, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
> Wouldn't this mean that we can't build base using the shipped-in-base g++? If
> we have C++ in base, we don't ship libstdc++ and g++ can't work with libc++,
> then people wanting to compile the base system with gcc/g++ will have to
> install
On Friday, 30 August 2013 at 08:35, David Chisnall wrote:
> I would be happy to ship gcc, as long as:
>
> - It's explicitly marked as deprecated and due for removal at some point in
> the 10.x timeframe.
> - libstdc++ is gone (the amount of pain it's causing ports is phenomenal).
Wouldn't this
On 30 Aug 2013, at 08:18, Julian Elischer wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned we can even slate it for
> "possible removal in 10.2-- if clang has proven up to the task"
I would be happy to ship gcc, as long as:
- It's explicitly marked as deprecated and due for removal at some point in the
10.x t
On 29 Aug 2013, at 18:44, John Baldwin wrote:
> How does removing GCC from base change this? I already deal with having
> 3 different GCC versions at work by building them from ports and building
> things with the right rpath, etc. so I am familiar with this, and having
> GCC in the base doesn't
On 8/30/13 1:02 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
On 29 Aug 2013, at 15:57, John Baldwin wrote:
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-specifi
18 matches
Mail list logo
