On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 08:53:36AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> On 01/23/12 07:26, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 09:33:02PM +0100, Roland Smith wrote:
> >> PCC is only a C compiler, and there is some C++ code (e.g. groff) in the
> >> base
> >> system. The FreeBSD port is marked as i386
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 08:54:32AM +, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 22/01/2012 22:53, Da Rock wrote:
> > What part is that? I thought it had to be all c...
>
> Not at all. clang and llvm are themselves written in C++.
>
> However, it's groff that Roland mentioned as the canonical example of
> C
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:01 PM, wrote:
> kpn...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> > Lattice C
>
> Later bought out by Microsoft IIRC
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe,
kpn...@pobox.com wrote:
> Lattice C
Later bought out by Microsoft IIRC
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
On 22/01/2012 22:53, Da Rock wrote:
> What part is that? I thought it had to be all c...
Not at all. clang and llvm are themselves written in C++.
However, it's groff that Roland mentioned as the canonical example of
C++ in base.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.P
On 01/23/12 07:26, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 09:33:02PM +0100, Roland Smith wrote:
PCC is only a C compiler, and there is some C++ code (e.g. groff) in the base
system. The FreeBSD port is marked as i386 and amd64 only, even though other
architectures seem to be there in the PCC
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 09:33:02PM +0100, Roland Smith wrote:
>
> PCC is only a C compiler, and there is some C++ code (e.g. groff) in the base
> system. The FreeBSD port is marked as i386 and amd64 only, even though other
> architectures seem to be there in the PCC source.
I had somehow forgotte
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 05:37:48AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
> PCC (Portable C Compiler), meanwhile, spent many years essentially unused
PCC is only a C compiler, and there is some C++ code (e.g. groff) in the base
system. The FreeBSD port is marked as i386 and amd64 only, even though other
archi
Quoth Robert Bonomi on Sunday, 22 January 2012:
> Da Rock wrote:
>
> > I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew
> > out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were
> > borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well,
> >
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 01:13:49AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> On 01/23/12 00:38, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> >Da Rock wrote:
> >
> >>I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew
> >>out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were
> >>borland and gcc. The f
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:55:18PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> On 01/22/12 22:37, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> >PCC (Portable C Compiler), meanwhile, spent many years essentially unused
> >except in some of the dustier corners of Unix user communities before
> >being actively developed again as more and mo
On Jan 22, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Eric Masson wrote:
> kpn...@pobox.com writes:
>
> Hi,
>
>> Lattice C - targeted MS-DOS, AmigaOS, probably others. Had a 32-bit int
>> on the Amiga, where Manx had a 16-bit int. When Commodore ported BSD sockets
>> to the Amiga they had to change all the ints to long
kpn...@pobox.com writes:
Hi,
> Lattice C - targeted MS-DOS, AmigaOS, probably others. Had a 32-bit int
> on the Amiga, where Manx had a 16-bit int. When Commodore ported BSD sockets
> to the Amiga they had to change all the ints to longs because of this. Was
> renamed "SAS/C" towards the end of t
Hi,
Reference:
> From: Da Rock
> Reply-to: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:13:49 +1000
> Message-id: <4f1c27ad.9070...@herveybayaustralia.com.au>
Da Rock wrote:
> On 01/23/12 00:38, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> > Da Rock wrote:
> >
> >> I personally
On Jan 22, 2012, at 6:38 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> Da Rock wrote:
>
>> I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew
>> out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were
>> borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well,
On 01/23/12 00:38, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Da Rock wrote:
I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew
out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were
borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well,
everything else.
"Once upo
Da Rock wrote:
> I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew
> out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were
> borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well,
> everything else.
"Once upon a time", there were _many_ al
On 01/22/12 22:37, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:06:04PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
On 01/22/12 17:45, Chad Perrin wrote:
A couple years ago, it looked like a race between PCC and TenDRA, but
Clang seemed to just come out of nowhere and steal all the attention.
All three of them had
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 05:37:48AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
>
> There has been some talk of it being the GCC replacement for OpenBSD
> and maybe even NetBSD, though I seem to recall Theo de Raadt doesn't
> consider replacing GCC a very urgent requirement right now (which might
> be part of the re
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:06:04PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> On 01/22/12 17:45, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> >A couple years ago, it looked like a race between PCC and TenDRA, but
> >Clang seemed to just come out of nowhere and steal all the attention.
> >All three of them had a lot to recommend them, bu
On 22/01/2012 11:50, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> While on the subject of Clang, is this compiler only for C, C++ and
> Objective-C?
Correct. Clang is the LLVM front-end for that family of languages.
> What about Ada and Fortran? Does one need GCC for that? Dragonlace
> for Ada?
There are other LLVM
While on the subject of Clang, is this compiler only for C, C++ and Objective-C?
What about Ada and Fortran? Does one need GCC for that? Dragonlace for Ada?
I believe some of the ports require GCC. Many of these ports are developed
primarily for Linux and subsequently ported to FreeBSD ports
On 01/22/12 17:45, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 05:09:52PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
On 01/22/12 17:02, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 03:43:13PM +, RW wrote:
I was just wondering what would have happened if Apple hadn't backed
clang/LLVM as BSD licensed projects. Was
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 05:09:52PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> On 01/22/12 17:02, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 03:43:13PM +, RW wrote:
> >>I was just wondering what would have happened if Apple hadn't backed
> >>clang/LLVM as BSD licensed projects. Was there a plan B (other than
>
On 01/22/12 17:02, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 03:43:13PM +, RW wrote:
I was just wondering what would have happened if Apple hadn't backed
clang/LLVM as BSD licensed projects. Was there a plan B (other than
gcc 4.2.1) or did Apple save the *BSD world?
The backup plan was pro
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 03:43:13PM +, RW wrote:
>
> I was just wondering what would have happened if Apple hadn't backed
> clang/LLVM as BSD licensed projects. Was there a plan B (other than
> gcc 4.2.1) or did Apple save the *BSD world?
The backup plan was probably PCC.
--
Chad Perrin [ o
On 01/22/12 02:39, David Jackson wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Da Rock<
freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au> wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of hoorays and pats on the back and a general
feeling satisfaction in being able to use clang to compile FreeBSD and
ports. The only reas
On 21/01/2012 17:47, Raimund Steger wrote:
> On 01/21/12 14:35, RW wrote:
>> [...]
>> It is that. I don't know the details, but GPLv3 is sufficiently more
>> viral that recent gcc versions can't be used as the base system
>> compiler. We're currently stuck with a version from 2007.
>
> Sorry if th
On 01/21/12 14:35, RW wrote:
[...]
It is that. I don't know the details, but GPLv3 is sufficiently more
viral that recent gcc versions can't be used as the base system
compiler. We're currently stuck with a version from 2007.
Sorry if this has been asked before, but it makes me wonder, what are
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Da Rock <
freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au> wrote:
> I've been seeing a lot of hoorays and pats on the back and a general
> feeling satisfaction in being able to use clang to compile FreeBSD and
> ports. The only reason I can see from searching is a need
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:35:06 +
RW wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:11:18 +1000
> Da Rock wrote:
>
> > Even under GPL anything built using gcc can be licensed as you like,
> > so I doubt it could be that.
>
> It is that. I don't know the details, but GPLv3 is sufficiently more
> viral that re
Da Rock writes:
> The only reason I can see from searching is a need to get away
> from gcc (which is tried and tested since the beginning of time)
> which is now apparently GPLv3.
I believe the GPLv3 issue is correct.
Two other reasons I have heard mentioned in various
discus
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:11:18 +1000
Da Rock wrote:
> I've been seeing a lot of hoorays and pats on the back and a general
> feeling satisfaction in being able to use clang to compile FreeBSD
> and ports. The only reason I can see from searching is a need to get
> away from gcc (which is tried and
On 21/01/2012 12:11, Da Rock wrote:
> I've been seeing a lot of hoorays and pats on the back and a general
> feeling satisfaction in being able to use clang to compile FreeBSD and
> ports. The only reason I can see from searching is a need to get away
> from gcc (which is tried and tested since the
I've been seeing a lot of hoorays and pats on the back and a general
feeling satisfaction in being able to use clang to compile FreeBSD and
ports. The only reason I can see from searching is a need to get away
from gcc (which is tried and tested since the beginning of time) which
is now apparen
35 matches
Mail list logo
