Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:38:56 -0000 From: "Pegasus Mc Cleaft" <ken@mthelicon.com> To: "Christoph Mallon" <christoph.mallon@gmx.de>, "Doug Barton" <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) Message-ID: <58DAD35B6CCC476E89B9D02F51041E87@PegaPegII> In-Reply-To: <496DD37E.5010900@gmx.de> References: <20090113044111.134EC1CC0B@ptavv.es.net> <20090113222023.GA51810@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <496D1ED6.4090202@FreeBSD.org> <200901132356.40820.ken@mthelicon.com><496DCC38.4010809@FreeBSD.org> <496DD37E.5010900@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Doug Barton schrieb:
>> Pegasus Mc Cleaft wrote:
>>> At the moment you can already compile gcc 4.3 from the ports tree,
>>> however things like binutils only seems to exist in the ports as a cross
>>> compiling tool. How hard would it be to add binutils as a port and make
>>> the gcc 4.x ports dependent on it? This way you can install gcc 4.3 with
>>> the assembler and linker that play nice together during the build? At
>>> the moment, I have had to make binutils from a gnu downloaded source and
>>> then make gcc 4.3 with a silly make, IE: make AS=/usr/local/bin/as
>>> ..........
>>
>> I think this would be an excellent approach. I am not sure I agree
>> with the idea that we _must_ have a compiler toolchain in the base but
>> it should definitely be possible to "replace" the toolchain in the
>> base with one from ports with a minimum of hassle.
I'm not sure I like the idea of not having _a_ compiler in the base. I'm
not really sure how that would work when you wanted to update and build the
sources. I suppose you would need to install a binary port of the compiler
(et. all) before you could build a more recent tool-chain.
Perhapse another option....
If gcc 4.2 && buildtools 2.15 is the end of the road for what BSD is
able to include under GPL V2. Can we draw a line under it and continue to
include it as buildable with the world if a configure option like "option
BUILDGCC42" is in the kernel config file? This way an admin who wanted to
build it and use it as a primer could, before downloading the port and
building the later versions (if he wanted to, or there organization allowed
him to). Some of the older *nix's I have worked on (OSF/1, HPUX, SCO, etc)
have a very basic (but normally optimized compiler) for that platform that
is enough to compile a version of gcc that will be used to compile other
tools and services.
>> On the one hand I like the "BSD approach" of sticking with tools that
>> work rather than constantly chasing the latest and greatest. However I
>> think we can run the risk of becoming mired in our own success, and
>> losing the agility that we'll need to keep things moving forward in
>> what will only become a more dynamic environment.
I have always loved the way that BSD (and most *nix's) have most of the
tools I need out of the box to get a system running (or running again if it
gets completely borked)
~Peg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?58DAD35B6CCC476E89B9D02F51041E87>