From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 23 18:21:00 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310C06BA; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 18:21:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 021E92981; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 18:20:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (etroy.elischer.org [121.45.226.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r7NIKDr5001682 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:20:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <5217A7D8.1030806@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 02:20:08 +0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: GCC withdraw References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com> <105E26EE-8471-49D3-AB57-FBE2779CF8D0@FreeBSD.org> <5217413A.9080105@passap.ru> <20130823111647.GT2951@home.opsec.eu> <52174D51.2050601@digsys.bg> <21414.1377258940@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <21414.1377258940@critter.freebsd.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: toolchain@FreeBSD.org, Kurt Jaeger , current@FreeBSD.org, Daniel Kalchev X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 18:21:00 -0000 On 8/23/13 7:55 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <52174D51.2050601@digsys.bg>, Daniel Kalchev writes: > >>> - 9.x gcc default and clang in base; >>> - 10.x clang default and gcc in ports; >> I believe this is the best idea so far. As long as these ports work with >> gcc in ports, that is. > +1 > well as I was forced to go back to gcc to get a compiling & running kernel on my VPS (xen) I'm not convinced that clang is there yet. I'd be really grumpy if I had to go through al the ports hoopla to recompile my kernel.