From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 1 02:21:01 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37CF41065757 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2009 02:21:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf2006a@yahoo.com) Received: from web39101.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web39101.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.86.252]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EBFF08FC22 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2009 02:21:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf2006a@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 27225 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Feb 2009 02:21:00 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=gFOjreYL/f80clcGkgEvwVynRU/5KxkoMZtQYlTdo6+YapLJiSXEeYHD38bCdoJylZMuKAapLYse5zeI6jxh9Whzs6r5ne5QcrExEpHnLCbuU9AwJvvz3nzqzNyBL72FReWeFAX1jyY9sTIaoPT0dO6nmtmf6FYHbbD4Hp98vGw=; X-YMail-OSG: 8bYtTIIVM1lwNsD9wEZQtmp9X_xsEOdyj.bEregAeTG4B0xQVpZbgE1kY3p1NepC63ixHmQ.vip3CJra7VMeudXGJ2mCvI4UHgRJHUp3eNwz7.lLX92HF7NJo0a_SKOojybbfd8jsiR1QDq5hwdJtr3zHQ17Zf4gzOm0o5rmtB6OF6EHqjG3WglntX.0MXnirZQDisbRdeXvAxrmXX9Pp5VmYgE42nwH Received: from [149.156.67.102] by web39101.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:21:00 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:21:00 -0800 (PST) From: bf To: Mark Linimon , giffunip@tutopia.com In-Reply-To: <875778.45562.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <364979.26927.qm@web39101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 03:04:15 +0000 Cc: Sean Cavanaugh , freebsd-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: bf2006a@yahoo.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 02:21:01 -0000 --- On Sat, 1/31/09, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > From: Pedro F. Giffuni > Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?) > To: "Mark Linimon" , bf2006a@yahoo.com > Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, "Sean Cavanaugh" > Date: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 8:32 PM > --- 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 Let us assume that you are correct. If no one else saw much value in doing it, and you don't think it's worth the effort, then what _are_ you complaining about? > 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. > Well, gcc certainly isn't ideal. But the improvements are real, even if there may be some regressions, too. And the effort involved in porting gcc 4.3.x may well be less than that required to enable pcc to compile the base on all platforms, let alone most of the third-party software. b.