Re: GCC withdraw (was: Re: patch to add AES intrinsics to gcc)
On Aug 23, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! I have a patch that I intend to commit before the 10.0 code slush that removes GCC and libstdc++ from the default build on platforms where clang is the system compiler. We definitely don't want to be supporting our 6-year-old versions of these for the lifetime of the 10.x branch. Isn't it a POLA violation? As for me I expect something like this: . 9.x gcc default and clang in base; . 10.x clang default and gcc in base; . 11.x gcc withdraw. If the 150 ports that only work with gcc, all work with a ports gcc and do not need the gcc from base, would the following be OK ? - 9.x gcc default and clang in base; - 10.x clang default and gcc in ports; No. That breaks non x86 architecutres. gcc must remain in base for now, or there's no bootstrap ability. Nobody has done the lifting to cleanly integrate gcc as a port into buildworld, althogh Brooks' work gets us most of the way there. Warner ___ freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: GCC withdraw (was: Re: patch to add AES intrinsics to gcc)
On 23 Aug 2013, at 14:52, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote: No. That breaks non x86 architecutres. gcc must remain in base for now, or there's no bootstrap ability. Nobody has done the lifting to cleanly integrate gcc as a port into buildworld, althogh Brooks' work gets us most of the way there. We've been using brooks' work to build the base system with an out-of-tree toolchain for some time now... David signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: GCC withdraw (was: Re: patch to add AES intrinsics to gcc)
On Aug 23, 2013, at 7:54 AM, David Chisnall wrote: On 23 Aug 2013, at 14:52, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote: No. That breaks non x86 architecutres. gcc must remain in base for now, or there's no bootstrap ability. Nobody has done the lifting to cleanly integrate gcc as a port into buildworld, althogh Brooks' work gets us most of the way there. We've been using brooks' work to build the base system with an out-of-tree toolchain for some time now... I'll have to try the native build part of the cycle then... Early versions of the patch failed when you cross built the target, installed the target, but wound up with no compilers to bootstrap the external toolchains with to do native builds on the target. Warner ___ freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: GCC withdraw (was: Re: patch to add AES intrinsics to gcc)
As for me I expect something like this: . 9.x gcc default and clang in base; . 10.x clang default and gcc in base; . 11.x gcc withdraw. There is also the concern whether clang in base will reliably build gcc required for some ports, and then there are those CPU architectures for which clang is nonexistent or not ready. Regarding those ports that build with the ancient gcc 4.2.1 but not with newer versions, that has to be considered a bug. Consider that Linux and the other BSDs use newer versions of gcc to build their base system and ports or pkgsrc. Tom ___ freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
