From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Fri Mar 29 03:36:09 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057E61556E04 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 03:36:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mayuresh@kathe.in) Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (relay2-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 931BA742BE for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 03:36:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mayuresh@kathe.in) Received: from webmail.gandi.net (webmail14.sd4.0x35.net [10.200.201.14]) (Authenticated sender: mayuresh@kathe.in) by relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2E8D840004; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 03:36:05 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 09:06:04 +0530 From: Mayuresh Kathe To: Polytropon Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Was PCC ever considered? Reply-To: mayuresh@kathe.in Mail-Reply-To: mayuresh@kathe.in In-Reply-To: <20190329040726.5ac38bec.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <20190329032106.520c79ea.freebsd@edvax.de> <9d761b9644a40e2186ce5e7dd525bfee@kathe.in> <20190329040726.5ac38bec.freebsd@edvax.de> Message-ID: X-Sender: mayuresh@kathe.in User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.8 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 931BA742BE X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of mayuresh@kathe.in designates 217.70.183.194 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mayuresh@kathe.in X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.20 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[mayuresh@kathe.in]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:217.70.176.0/21]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[kathe.in]; REPLYTO_ADDR_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: spool.mail.gandi.net]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.87)[-0.865,0]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[194.183.70.217.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:29169, ipnet:217.70.176.0/20, country:FR]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-0.93)[ip: (-1.91), ipnet: 217.70.176.0/20(-1.51), asn: 29169(-1.22), country: FR(-0.01)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 03:36:09 -0000 On 2019-03-29 08:37 AM, Polytropon wrote: > On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:55:17 +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: >> On 2019-03-29 07:51 AM, Polytropon wrote: >> > On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 02:07:05 +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: >> >> Since FreeBSD uses Clang/LLVM (which is kind-a huge) I wondered if PCC >> >> was ever considered during the GCC days or even while contemplating >> >> the >> >> switch to Clang/LLVM. >> > >> > When FreeBSD evolved, it was primarily GCC that has been used >> > as the system compiler, so it became the standard. With Clang/LLVM >> > offering both evolution in compiler design and implementation, as >> > well as a licensing difference to GPL-based GCC, it was chosen >> > to be the current default. >> > >> > I think PCC wasn't on the map yet at that time... ;-) >> >> PCC wasn't on the FreeBSD map! Right? > > At least in "newer" FreeBSD versions (I'm using it since 4.0, > so that's where my "horizon of experience" ends) GCC was used > due to the features that needed to exist for the FreeBSD OS > to be properly built. It's possible that PCC didn't fulfill > all the requirements. True, before "ragge" took it up, PCC had gone stale. >> PCC has existed for a long time. > > It has even been the first compiler used in the BSD world, if > I remember correctly, due to its ability to be configured > easily for new hardware platforms. It was/is considered the most portable compiler-set. >> The project is very much alive, albeit moving quite slowly as all of >> the >> developers work only in their spare time. > > So if it arrives in OpenBSD which is known for their work to > get the system as bug-free and correct as possible, it might > be considered by FreeBSD to replace Clang/LLVM, but only time > will tell... It won't arrive in OpenBSD, mainly due to political reasons. Also, OpenBSD has already moved to Clang/LLVM for x86_64. ~Mayuresh