From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 18 11:45:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E691B16A4CE; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:45:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp4.server.rpi.edu (smtp4.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 971D443D3F; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:45:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp4.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2IJjKoP013233; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:45:20 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040318172827.GB41559@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200403122136.i2CLaCm9096276@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040315033213.GA40858@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040315180324.0fa39609@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20040318002208.GC2541@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040318162358.3f57aef3@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20040318172827.GB41559@dragon.nuxi.com> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:45:19 -0500 To: obrien@FreeBSD.org, Alexander Leidinger From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: Tom Rhodes cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.cpu.mk bsd.dep.mk bsd.lib.mk bsd.sys.mk src/sys/conf files kern.mk kern.pre.mk kmod.mk src/sys/dev/aic7xxx/aicasm Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:45:22 -0000 At 9:28 AM -0800 3/18/04, David O'Brien wrote: >On Thu, Mar 18, 2004, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > >Just to be clear -- I'm not against supporting a 2nd compiler >in /usr/src at all. Just don't think Intel is the most gracious >compiler vendor. I'll also strongly push back on ever using >'icc' as part of the release build. I personally think this is the main point. It is perfectly reasonable for people to fix our base-system source such that FreeBSD can be compiled with any reasonably-modern C compiler. This gives users the option of using a non-gcc compiler, and it gives us the ability to benchmark gcc against *something*, instead of just saying "well, gcc is all there is, so we'll take whatever compiler they are willing to produce". That doesn't mean we're going to start shipping FreeBSD compiled on Intel's compiler. If we switch away from using gcc for the official distributions, then we should use some other compiler that works on all platforms. And by "all", I mean "sparc, ppc, alpha". I suspect it will be a mighty cold day in hell before Intel's compiler will support those chips. I also doubt Intel would want us shipping FreeBSD with their compiler pre-installed (for *everyone* to use) even for just i386 platforms. We should only distribute FreeBSD as compiled with a compiler that we can ship with FreeBSD. IMO. Other than that, I think this thread can pretty much die. There is no information content after those points. We're just going to trade little snips back and forth, and that is bound to just make matters worse. No, I do NOT care who started it. Just stop it, please. Everyone. Stop. Write some code. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu