Sorry for adding to the long thread. On Sat, 31 Aug 2013, David Chisnall wrote:
However, we want to be able to make it unsupported at some point in the 10.x series when there is a polished alternative for every supported architecture (either when they've moved to clang or when the XCC stuff
I am worried about the definition of "polished". I held my tongue in Ottawa in 2011 when Kirk wanted to turn SU+J on by default, since I figured he knew what was going on much better than I did. Then, we discovered the bad interactions between SU+J and snapshots. If memory serves, things like sparc64 and mips64 support for clang/llvm and XCC suppor are being described as only "a few man-months work away". But that seems to be just to get something which is working ... I fear that to get it truly "polished" will be another 2-3 years on top of those man-months. If we are in agreement about what "polished" means, then by all means announce with 10.0 that gcc's days are numbered and drop it at the appropriate 10.x. I just don't want us to discover terrible bugs a few months after we make a switch, due to being wrong about "polished".
-Ben
is fully documented in the handbook and tested in a large variety of configurations and once our forked binutils and is available as a package and we have cross-gcc that uses it). If this doesn't happen by the time 10.x is EOL'd then I'll be sad, but we still have the fall-back position of gcc in base for the entire 10.x. If it does happen, then we can start more aggressively phasing out gcc in the base system.
_______________________________________________ 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"
