Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:12:49 +0100 From: Ruben de Groot <mail25@bzerk.org> To: alex <alex@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ld-elf related problems Message-ID: <20091221151249.GA60183@ei.bzerk.org> In-Reply-To: <4B2F5973.8050003@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> References: <d873d5be0912201908v50c33e87j65798165cdd3b1d1@mail.gmail.com> <4B2F5973.8050003@mailinglist.ahhyes.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:18:11PM +1100, alex typed: > b. f. wrote: > >Our base system compiler suite is stuck at a patched version of gcc > >4.2 because of licensing issues > Thats absolutely *ridiculous* that we have to use stone age development > tools because of stupid and trivial license politics. - Calling it ridiculous does not make the licencing problem go away. - The base-system compiler is there to compile the base system. - There's plenty of development tools in ports. - gcc 4.2.x isn't exactly "stone age". (I'm still administering some HP-UX boxes with gcc 2.95 on them. It's old, but compiles pretty workable code.) > Is this the reason why people are pushing for llvm, just to avoid the > GPL license type of later releases of the gnu c compiler and tools? > Thats really sad. llvm has a long way to go before it can be considered > a worthy competitor against gcc. I think it is, and I share your concern. But really, the gcc people made their choice and we have to live with it. > Linux is going to leave us for dust at this rate. So? It's just an OS. Some will switch to linux and try to make that better. Thats evolution.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091221151249.GA60183>