Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread David Chisnall
Hi All, In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd like to start disconnecting things from the default build, starting with gcc. I've been running a gcc-free system for a while, and I think all of the ports that don't build with clang are now explicitly depending on gcc. Does any

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Mark Linimon
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David Chisnall wrote: > I think all of the ports that don't build with clang are now explicitly > depending on gcc. Nope. We switched some of the most notorious failures, but hundreds more remain -- mostly leaf ports. Without the ability to run -exp buil

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Roman Divacky
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:47:19AM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David Chisnall wrote: > > I think all of the ports that don't build with clang are now explicitly > > depending on gcc. > > Nope. We switched some of the most notorious failures, but hundreds

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David Chisnall wrote: > Hi All, > > In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd like to start > disconnecting things from the default build, starting with gcc. I've been > running a gcc-free system for a while, and I think all of the ports t

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread David Chisnall
On 25 Jan 2013, at 11:31, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > To clarify: there is no plans to not ship any GPLed code for 10.x. This is something that has been said on mailing lists, at BSDCan and at DevSummits in the past, without any objections being raised. If this is no longer a goal, then that

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 25/01/2013 15:21 David Chisnall said the following: > This is something that has been said on mailing lists, at BSDCan and at > DevSummits in the past, without any objections being raised. A simple test - has there been a core decision that no GPL software must be shipped with 10.x? -- Andriy

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread David Chisnall
On 25 Jan 2013, at 14:03, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 25/01/2013 15:21 David Chisnall said the following: >> This is something that has been said on mailing lists, at BSDCan and at >> DevSummits in the past, without any objections being raised. > > A simple test - has there been a core decision that

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 25/01/2013 16:10 David Chisnall said the following: > On 25 Jan 2013, at 14:03, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> on 25/01/2013 15:21 David Chisnall said the following: >>> This is something that has been said on mailing lists, at BSDCan and at >>> DevSummits in the past, without any objections being r

[patch] crunchide breaks object files when using mclinker to do base system linking

2013-01-25 Thread Erik Cederstrand
Hello list, On behalf of Pete Chou, I would like to ask for review, testing and hopefully commit help of this revised patch for crunchgen and crunchide which allows mclinker (http://code.google.com/p/mclinker/) to link the base system. In short, this patch is needed because crunchide is being o

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Warner Losh
On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David Chisnall wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd like to start >> disconnecting things from the default build, starting with gcc. I've been >> runn

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Warner Losh
On Jan 25, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 25/01/2013 16:10 David Chisnall said the following: >> On 25 Jan 2013, at 14:03, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >>> on 25/01/2013 15:21 David Chisnall said the following: This is something that has been said on mailing lists, at BSDCan and at >

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:31:39PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David Chisnall wrote: > >> Hi All, > >> > >> In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd like to start > >> discon

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Warner Losh
On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:41 AM, David Chisnall wrote: > Hi All, > > In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd like to start > disconnecting things from the default build, starting with gcc. I've been > running a gcc-free system for a while, and I think all of the ports that > don'

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Pedro Giffuni
On 01/25/2013 14:59, Konstantin Belousov wrote: On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:31:39PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David Chisnall wrote: Hi All, In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:36:15PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > On 01/25/2013 14:59, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:31:39PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > >> On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David C

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Pedro Giffuni
On 01/25/2013 15:44, Konstantin Belousov wrote: ... I am really tired of the constant struggle against the consumation of the FreeBSD as the test-bed for the pre-alpha quality software. E.g., are we fine with broken C++ runtime in 9 ? The libstdc++ issue is really REALLY worrying. I would prefer

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 2013-01-25 21:54, Pedro Giffuni wrote: ... I am aware a fix is being worked on. I think that as long as the default compiler/C++ library works it is OK to make things easier for other compilers. I am OK with having that change in -current but for 9.x it is simply unacceptable. Actually, clan

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 25/01/2013 21:35 Warner Losh said the following: > This has been talked about in a vague way for years. Warner, just a nitpick, couldn't resist - sorry, so for years we talked about the magic 10.x release to become GPL-free? Or was it just a goal for 'some day'? -- Andriy Gapon _

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Warner Losh
On Jan 25, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 25/01/2013 21:35 Warner Losh said the following: >> This has been talked about in a vague way for years. > > Warner, > > just a nitpick, couldn't resist - sorry, so for years we talked about the > magic > 10.x release to become GPL-free? >

Re: Removing default build of gcc

2013-01-25 Thread Pedro Giffuni
On 01/25/2013 16:51, Dimitry Andric wrote: On 2013-01-25 21:54, Pedro Giffuni wrote: ... I am aware a fix is being worked on. I think that as long as the default compiler/C++ library works it is OK to make things easier for other compilers. I am OK with having that change in -current but for 9.x

Re: [patch] crunchide breaks object files when using mclinker to do base system linking

2013-01-25 Thread Luba Tang
Hi, list, This patch helps not only MCLinker but also the Google gold linker to link the base system. GNU ld, Google gold and MCLinker are designed for different purposes and have different market spectrum. Letting different groups adopt different linkers for their own needs can cater BSD to vari