Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 21:53:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> To: David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org> Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: GCC withdraw Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1308312147110.16692@multics.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <98D31DD3-8A1D-46ED-9BF6-9EBE39640860@freebsd.org> References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com> <201308291344.25562.jhb@freebsd.org> <A981C965-D625-458B-B0AB-171C983AEA42@FreeBSD.org> <201308301041.18874.jhb@freebsd.org> <20130831073330.GC36239@funkthat.com> <98D31DD3-8A1D-46ED-9BF6-9EBE39640860@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.GSO.1.10.1308312147110.16692>