From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Aug 24 11:49:54 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 6F07EF7;
 Sat, 24 Aug 2013 11:49:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru)
Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E73729D1;
 Sat, 24 Aug 2013 11:49:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD))
 (envelope-from <slw@zxy.spb.ru>)
 id 1VDCNq-000NUP-JB; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 15:51:58 +0400
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 15:51:58 +0400
From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru>
To: "Sam Fourman Jr." <sfourman@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: GCC withdraw
Message-ID: <20130824115158.GA88999@zxy.spb.ru>
References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com>
 <105E26EE-8471-49D3-AB57-FBE2779CF8D0@FreeBSD.org>
 <5217413A.9080105@passap.ru> <20130823111647.GT2951@home.opsec.eu>
 <521745F2.8050607@passap.ru>
 <CAOFF+Z3vbOgMO7T-BKZnhKte6=rFoGcdYcft5kpAgNH2my1JKg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOFF+Z3vbOgMO7T-BKZnhKte6=rFoGcdYcft5kpAgNH2my1JKg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org, Boris Samorodov <bsam@passap.ru>,
 FreeBSD Current <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
 <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 11:49:54 -0000

On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 06:30:24AM -0400, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:

> > If the 150 ports that only work with gcc, all work with a ports
> 
> > > gcc and do not need the gcc from base, would the following be OK ?
> > >
> > > - 9.x gcc default and clang in base;
> > > - 10.x clang default and gcc in ports;
> >
> > Well, we write rules and we brake them. ;-)
> >
> > Just say that we know we brake them but it's inevitable because...
> > And go futher.
> >
> 
> I am not a developer, just a user, so I am not versed in all of the
> issues but I
> would REALLY like to see gcc moved to ports for 10.x
> 
> In my opinion this just needs to happen, if ports break, we deal with that
> on  a case by case basis.

Oh, I remember. mplayer on i386 can't be builded witch clang -- clang
don't understand inlined asm.