From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 26 13:15:06 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@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 633A6BFF for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:15:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from clbuisson@orange.fr) Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp05.smtpout.orange.fr [80.12.242.127]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F21622360 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([90.55.173.166]) by mwinf5d10 with ME id HREv1m00K3bm9Na03REwKa; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:14:57 +0200 Message-ID: <521B54CF.3020905@orange.fr> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:14:55 +0200 From: Claude Buisson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130810 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gerald Pfeifer Subject: Re: patch to add AES intrinsics to gcc References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com> <105E26EE-8471-49D3-AB57-FBE2779CF8D0@FreeBSD.org> <5CE4B5FA-9DA0-45E4-8D67-161E0829FE6B@FreeBSD.org> <5217DBAB.5030607@freebsd.org> <86032E72-A569-4946-B4F8-26F687067B31@bsdimp.com> <1380949A-254A-4222-BEDE-0C23E16E4F67@freebsd.org> <8C31A000-6806-4291-98A4-E8291E637BD2@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: re@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:15:06 -0000 On 08/26/2013 03:12, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, Warner Losh wrote: >>> "If you push gcc out to a port, and you have the 'external compiler' >>> toolchain support working correctly enough to build with this, why >>> don't we just push clang out to a port, and be done with it?" >> This is a stupid idea. It kills the tightly integrated nature of >> FreeBSD. I'd say it is far too radical a departure and opens up a >> huge can of "which version of what compiler" nightmare that we've >> largely dodged to date because we had one (or maybe two) compilers >> in the base system. > > I am working towards establishing lang/gcc as _the_ version of GCC > to use for ports. > > Today I looked at a couple of those GCC cross-compilers we have in > ports, and I have to admit I am not thrilled. Each of those I saw > copies a lot from (older version of my ports), each has a different > maintainer, each has some additions, and there is little consistency. > Perhaps you could have a look at the fact that lang/gcc is at 4.6.3, and lang/gcc46 is no more a snapshot but a true release 4.6.4. IMHO, lang/gcc must be discontinued, or updated to 4.6.4 and lang/gcc46 discontinued ? > Are these the base of 'external compiler' toolchain support? Are > there any plans to increase consistency and reduce redundancy? In > an ideal world, could those become slave ports of lang/gcc? > > Gerald Claude Buisson