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. 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 _______________________________________________ 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"
