Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 18:01:03 -0500 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD Message-ID: <20100531230103.GG31972@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <4C043DAB.1050206@freebsd.org> References: <20100529130240.GA99732@freebsd.org> <20100530135859.GI83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <508DA8CE-749A-46B4-AF0B-392DB08CBBCD@samsco.org> <20100531095617.GR83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <71B7DEC2-1ABE-4333-8C8E-02F899D2449B@samsco.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1005311456430.91047@fledge.watson.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1005311051440.12132@sea.ntplx.net> <4C03DD4B.9020209@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4C043DAB.1050206@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--+1TulI7fc0PCHNy3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 03:52:27PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: > Matthew Seaman wrote: >> Presumably the import of clang to the base does >> not mean the immediate removal of gcc. >=20 > Of course not. >=20 > I'm not part of core and don't know what they > may have discussed, but I went through some hoops > to replace 'tar' and 'cpio' in the base system > and have some idea what approach we might take > with clang: >=20 > I would expect FreeBSD 9 to ship with both > compilers, with gcc as the default for 'cc'. > So users of 9-STABLE would see and use gcc > unless they specifically chose to use clang. >=20 > Even if we did decide to switch the default > for FreeBSD 10, it's possible we would continue > to install gcc as part of the base system > (just not as 'cc'). >=20 > So realistically, some form of gcc will be built > and installed by default for a few more years. > Beyond that, it depends partly on how well clang > does and partly on how many problems we have with > an increasingly out-of-date gcc. Exactly. We will need to take some risks here, but nuking gcc from the tree won't be one of them for a while. I just sent a link to current and arch with links to the toolchain summit wiki page and a summary of the results. I encorage interested parties to read what is there and provide constructive suggestions. -- Brooks --+1TulI7fc0PCHNy3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFMBD+vXY6L6fI4GtQRAgVuAKDErV9gxVQ1HRKK8HjOEjLd3lq0+wCffAhl 5hxgz6p6Ik+OvGLTCqu9Nes= =/2/y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+1TulI7fc0PCHNy3--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100531230103.GG31972>