From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 1 01:59:10 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251C1106573A for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2009 01:59:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from giffunip@tutopia.com) Received: from web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.207.248]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C337A8FC12 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2009 01:59:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from giffunip@tutopia.com) Received: (qmail 45573 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Feb 2009 01:32:27 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: OwJKYckVM1n78j75TiKXWRNQlrXqRl0NlZDVByvlNQguoPxOdWfWF1lNyx59Yd1TqN_FzMwiIAOLSQvZkcE6wZ3iGk8z.hHff1jOTJyjFgkVRuSNvwCkmlSMCA_XSBa0zmG69XuKNsJJlydR4MHFqUh5V28wwwaXK5Uhk93mEc5_Hp6pJwJFFHjRMgZ3gBIJfopNXIaNcfcCp7IAXPhsSJyC.XDl5A-- Received: from [190.157.124.207] by web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:32:27 PST X-RocketYMMF: giffunip X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:32:27 -0800 (PST) From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" To: Mark Linimon , bf2006a@yahoo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <875778.45562.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 03:04:05 +0000 Cc: Sean Cavanaugh , current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: giffunip@tutopia.com List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 01:59:10 -0000 --- On Sat, 1/31/09, bf wrote: ... > The license is _a_ consideration, but not the _only_ consideration > for including some useful code. I don't know much about the > readline case, but it was my impression that libedit was considered > and then rejected, ... Nope, you don't know much about the readline case. Dig the patches if you like, but I don't see how updating them will change things. It was not done simply because no one saw much value in doing it, just like there isn't much value into adding license complexity to our base compiler for some theoretical (5% was it?) improvements. > Because it has a large number of bugfixes and improvements over gcc > 4.2.x. Read the changelogs for examples. Even with these "evident" bugfixes and improvements the situation is pretty lame. The growing complexity of the gcc codebase is one of the reasons why the other BSDs are forking pcc. I certainly have great respect for the tough work that gerald@ puts into this but I have no interest in becoming a gcc guru. We do lack some serious compiler/toolchain gurus and I'm sure the llvm/pcc developers welcome patches too. Pedro.