Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:51:31 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Pegasus Mc Cleaft <ken@mthelicon.com> Cc: Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) Message-ID: <20090201025131.GC83330@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <58DAD35B6CCC476E89B9D02F51041E87@PegaPegII> References: <20090113044111.134EC1CC0B@ptavv.es.net> <20090113222023.GA51810@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <496D1ED6.4090202@FreeBSD.org> <496DD37E.5010900@gmx.de> <58DAD35B6CCC476E89B9D02F51041E87@PegaPegII>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:38:56PM -0000, Pegasus Mc Cleaft wrote: > If gcc 4.2 && buildtools 2.15 is the end of the road for what BSD is > able to include under GPL V2. GCC 4.2.1, Binutils 2.17, GDB 6.6 are the end of the GPLv2 line. We are already at GCC 4.2.1. I am working on moving us to Binutils 2.17. There is also an effort to move us to GDB 6.5 (not 6.6 because there is existing work we can leverage; we could then move to 6.6). > Can we draw a line under it and continue to > include it as buildable with the world if a configure option like > "option BUILDGCC42" is in the kernel config file? We have customizations to GCC that have not been accepted back into the stock GCC (not that I haven't tried for years). We use these options in the kernel build. As the person that upgraded us to many new GCC versions, the usual major motivation for me was userland apps (my own and those in /usr/ports), not /usr/src. Though the benefit to /usr/src was also a motivation for me. Given there isn't a new C standard being worked on post C99 (only addendums), I think we have a suitable compiler for /usr/src. Yes we know of some bugs, but we've disabled the options tickle them. Given it is harder and harder to BSDize GCC as it grows more tentacles and run-time requirements; I think we should consider a normal FreeBSD installation as having a system compiler and a general purpose application compiler. The C++ ABI issues are behind us. (Actually have been since GCC 3.2 in that there was finally a C++ ABI standard, the issues in 3.3 and 3.4 were fixing bugs in the GCC implementation of the standard). I am not aware of any C++ ABI issues 3.4->4.1->4.2. [please educated me if you know of something] -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090201025131.GC83330>